Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.025 (2026)

Employer

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

657.025 Employer. (1) As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, “employer” means any employing unit which employs one or more individuals in an employment subject to this chapter in each of 18 separate weeks during any calendar year, or in which the employing unit’s total payroll during any calendar quarter amounts to $1,000 or more.

(2) Whenever any helper, assistant or employee of an employer engages any other person in the work that the helper, assistant or employee is doing for the employer, with the employer’s actual, constructive or implied knowledge, the employer shall, for all purposes of this chapter, be deemed the employer of the other person, whether the other person is paid by the helper, assistant or employee or by the employer. All persons employed by an employer in all of the employer’s several places of employment maintained within the state shall be treated as employed by a single employer for the purposes of this chapter. [Amended by 1953 c.494 §1; 1955 c.655 §2; 1959 c.405 §1; 1971 c.463 §2; 1973 c.300 §1; 1975 c.257 §1; 1981 c.77 §1; 2007 c.46 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases, 1959–2016 · leading case: Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens v. Emp. Dep't, 28 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens v. Emp. Dep't, 28 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “Helens (church), seeks judicial review of a final order of an Employment Department hearing officer holding that the church is an employer within the meaning of ORS 657.025 and is therefore liable for unemployment taxes.”

Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015). · cites it 3× “” ORS 657.025(1). 2 “Wages” are “all remuneration for employment.”

Gross v. Emp. Dep't, 240 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “505, that he is an “employer” under ORS 657.025 and that the computer repair technicians affiliated with his business are engaged in “employment” under ORS 657.”

Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 379 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “105(1), 10 and that Delta was an employer during the audit period within the meaning of ORS 657.025(1). 11 Delta asserted that the services provided by its owner-operators were not employment under ORS 657.”

Necanicum Inv. Co. v. Emp. Dep't, 164 P.3d 1197 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See ORS 657.025 (defining “employer”). 6 The dispositive question, therefore, is whether the director’s fees were “remuneration” for a “service” that the board provided to the corporation.”

Newport Church of the Nazarene v. Hensley, 56 P.3d 386 (Or. 2002). “” ORS 657.025(1). An employee is “any person * * * employed for remuneration or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied, by an employer subject to this chapter * * ORS 657.”

Avanti Press, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 274 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “” ORS 657.025. “Employing unit,” in turn, includes a company that “has or had in its employ one or more individuals performing services for it within this state.”

Necanicum Inv. Co. v. Emp. Dep't, 190 P.3d 368 (Or. 2008). “” “Employer,” in turn, is defined in ORS 657.025(1), which provides, in part: “As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, ‘employer’ means any employing unit which employs one or more individuals in an employment subject to this chapter[.”

3P Delivery, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 295 P.3d 83 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “482(8)(a), (c), and affirm. Tax assessments of the department are prima facie correct, ORS 657.”

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. Emp. Dep't, 995 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “7 Fourth, subsection (4) was added by the 1977 Legislature, providing that, “[notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 657.025, ‘employer’ means any state government or political subdivision employing unit.”

State Unemployment Comp. Comm'n v. Bates, 341 P.2d 119 (Or. 1959). · cites it 2× “The commission, which avers that the defendant is an employer within the meaning of ORS 657.025, instituted this action to recover from him sums which it says are due to it as employer contributions under the Unemployment Compensation Act, *123 ORS chapter 657.”

Emp. Departmet v. Nat'l Maint. Contractors of Oregon, Inc., 204 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “015(1); ORS 657.025(1); ORS 657.030(1). As the court explained, the phrase “unless the context requires otherwise” means that, “in some cases, the circumstances of a case may require the application of a modified definition of the pertinent statutory terms to carry out the…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.025(1) — 14 cases

Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens v. Emp. Dep't, 28 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “Helens (church), seeks judicial review of a final order of an Employment Department hearing officer holding that the church is an employer within the meaning of ORS 657.025 and is therefore liable for unemployment taxes.”

Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015). “” ORS 657.025(1). 2 “Wages” are “all remuneration for employment.”

Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 379 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “105(1), 10 and that Delta was an employer during the audit period within the meaning of ORS 657.025(1). 11 Delta asserted that the services provided by its owner-operators were not employment under ORS 657.”

Gross v. Emp. Dep't, 240 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “505, that he is an “employer” under ORS 657.025 and that the computer repair technicians affiliated with his business are engaged in “employment” under ORS 657.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.025(2) — 2 cases

M/V Dake II Co. v. Emp. Div., 552 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Brewer Logging v. Emp. Div., 552 P.2d 286 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.