Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040 (2026)

Employment; when service for pay excluded; independent contractors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      657.040 Employment; when service for pay excluded; independent contractors. (1) Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director of the Employment Department that the individual is an independent contractor, as that term is defined in ORS 670.600.

      (2) A finding that an individual performed services for an employing unit and earned less than the minimum amount necessary to qualify for benefits under ORS 657.150 based on earnings from that employing unit may not be considered in determining whether the service is employment under subsection (1) of this section. [Amended by 1967 c.303 §1; 1981 c.895 §1; 1985 c.225 §1; 1989 c.762 §6; 2005 c.533 §4]

 

      657.042 [1981 c.895 §3; 1983 c.579 §1; repealed by 1989 c.762 §8 and 1989 c.870 §14]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases, 1959–2017 · leading case: Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 34× “I The distinction between an employe and an independent contractor, for present purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of…”
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 34× “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
Cejas Com. Interiors, Inc. v. Torres-Lizama, 316 P.3d 389 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Harvey *101 involved a claim for unemployment tax by the Employment Division under ORS 657.040. We concluded that the petitioner had employed a minor because the minor was not “free from the employer’s control and direction.”
Baker v. Cameron, 401 P.2d 691 (Or. 1965). · cites it 7× “ORS 657.040 provides: “Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that: “(1) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or…”
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 379 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Under the department’s interpretation, if an owner-operator leases several trucks to a for-hire motor carrier for interstate transport and maintains them but provides hired drivers for their operation, the exemption does not apply and the drivers are employees of the for-hire…”
Emp. Div. v. Nw. Christian Coll., 570 P.2d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 10× “072(1)(a)(B) cannot be analogized to the "direction or control" test applicable in determining whether the person supplying services is an independent contractor exempt under ORS 657.040(1). That test is applied in determining the relationship between the person supplying the…”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015). · cites it 4× “ORS 657.040(1). 5 In this case, the Employment Department issued Broadway a Notice of Tax Assessment assessing unemployment insurance taxes for the first quarter of 2008 through the fourth quarter of 2009 on the earnings of certain taxicab drivers affiliated with Broadway.”
Revlon Servs., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 567 P.2d 1072 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 5× “Revlon appeals contending that the free-lance artists are not employes under ORS 657.040 which provides: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the…”
Emp. Departmet v. Nat'l Maint. Contractors of Oregon, Inc., 204 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “1 If an individual provides services to an employer for remuneration, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the service comes within an enumerated exception to the definition of employment, such as the “independent contractor” exclusion in ORS 657.”
Carpet Mill & Lighthouse v. Emp. Div., 642 P.2d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “The distinction between an employe and independent contractor, for these purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040. “Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the…”
Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 663 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “Petitioner conceded that three of the individuals were employes but contended that the remaining 13 were independent contractors under ORS 657.040. A referee determined that those 13 were employes, concluding that petitioner had failed to prove that any of the 13 were “free from…”
TETON Indus., INC. v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 7× “First, it alleges that the referee erroneously construed the criteria for the exemption granted by ORS 657.040 (2)(a). Second, it alleges that the specific findings of fact made by the referee are not supported by the evidence because he failed to take into account the…”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(1) — 35 cases
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “I The distinction between an employe and an independent contractor, for present purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of…”
Emp. Div. v. Nw. Christian Coll., 570 P.2d 100 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “072(1)(a)(B) cannot be analogized to the "direction or control" test applicable in determining whether the person supplying services is an independent contractor exempt under ORS 657.040(1). That test is applied in determining the relationship between the person supplying the…”
Broadway Cab LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 364 P.3d 338 (Or. 2015). “ORS 657.040(1). 5 In this case, the Employment Department issued Broadway a Notice of Tax Assessment assessing unemployment insurance taxes for the first quarter of 2008 through the fourth quarter of 2009 on the earnings of certain taxicab drivers affiliated with Broadway.”
Delta Logistics, Inc. v. Emp. Dep't Tax Section, 379 P.3d 783 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “Under the department’s interpretation, if an owner-operator leases several trucks to a for-hire motor carrier for interstate transport and maintains them but provides hired drivers for their operation, the exemption does not apply and the drivers are employees of the for-hire…”
Emp. Departmet v. Nat'l Maint. Contractors of Oregon, Inc., 204 P.3d 151 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “1 If an individual provides services to an employer for remuneration, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the service comes within an enumerated exception to the definition of employment, such as the “independent contractor” exclusion in ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(1)(a) — 2 cases
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
Canvasser Servs., Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 987 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(1)(b) — 2 cases
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
Canvasser Servs., Inc. v. Emp. Dep't, 987 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(1)(c) — 1 case
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(2) — 11 cases
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “I The distinction between an employe and an independent contractor, for present purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of…”
Carpet Mill & Lighthouse v. Emp. Div., 642 P.2d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “The distinction between an employe and independent contractor, for these purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040. “Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of the…”
Ponderosa Inn, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 663 P.2d 1291 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “Petitioner conceded that three of the individuals were employes but contended that the remaining 13 were independent contractors under ORS 657.040. A referee determined that those 13 were employes, concluding that petitioner had failed to prove that any of the 13 were “free from…”
Michelet, Sowers, Johnson & Co. v. Morgan, 501 P.2d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
Auto. Tech., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 775 P.2d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(2)(a) — 17 cases
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “I The distinction between an employe and an independent contractor, for present purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of…”
TETON Indus., INC. v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “First, it alleges that the referee erroneously construed the criteria for the exemption granted by ORS 657.040 (2)(a). Second, it alleges that the specific findings of fact made by the referee are not supported by the evidence because he failed to take into account the…”
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 656 P.2d 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
Auto. Tech., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 775 P.2d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines v. Emp. Div., 587 P.2d 475 (Or. 1978).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(2)(b) — 11 cases
Pam's Carpet Serv., Inc. v. Emp. Div., 613 P.2d 52 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “I The distinction between an employe and an independent contractor, for present purposes, is expressed in ORS 657.040: "Services performed by an individual for remuneration are deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless and until it is shown to the satisfaction of…”
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
TETON Indus., INC. v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “First, it alleges that the referee erroneously construed the criteria for the exemption granted by ORS 657.040 (2)(a). Second, it alleges that the specific findings of fact made by the referee are not supported by the evidence because he failed to take into account the…”
Harvey v. Emp. Div., 674 P.2d 1204 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Mt. Jefferson Carpets v. Emp. Div., 548 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(2)(b)(A) — 1 case
Brewer Logging v. Emp. Div., 552 P.2d 286 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(3) — 1 case
Fireside, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 671 P.2d 734 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(l)(a) — 5 cases
Church at 295 S. 18th St., St. Helens v. Emp. Dep't, 28 P.3d 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Pacificab Co. v. Emp. Dep't, 69 P.3d 774 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Oregon Festival of Am. Music v. Emp. Dep't, 130 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
Emp. Div. v. Peddicord, 865 P.2d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(l)(b) — 2 cases
Travel Networkers, LLC v. Emp. Dep't, 30 P.3d 416 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Oregon Festival of Am. Music v. Emp. Dep't, 130 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.040(l)(c) — 1 case
Petersen v. Emp. Dep't, 898 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). “In particular, petitioner points out that, although the referee’s decision referred exclusively to the present ORS 657.040, that statute did not assume its present form until October 4, 1989, and was materially different before that date.”
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.