Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155 (2026)

Benefit eligibility conditions; rules

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

      657.155 Benefit eligibility conditions; rules. (1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the Director of the Employment Department finds that:

      (a) The individual has registered for work at and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with such rules as the director may prescribe. However, the director may, by rule, waive or alter either or both of the requirements of this subsection as to individuals attached to regular jobs and as to such other types of cases or situations with respect to which the director finds that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive, or would be inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; provided, that no such rule conflicts with ORS 657.255.

      (b) The individual has made a claim for benefits with respect to such week in accordance with ORS 657.260.

      (c) The individual is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to obtain suitable work. No individual participating in a community work and training program, as defined in ORS 411.855, shall, solely by reason thereof, be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.

      (d) The individual has been unemployed for a waiting period of one week, unless the Governor has waived the required waiting period as provided in ORS 401.186.

      (e) The individual is not disqualified from benefits or ineligible for benefits under any other section of this chapter.

      (f) The individual is qualified for benefits under ORS 657.150.

      (2)(a) An individual who leaves the individual’s normal labor market area for the major portion of any week is presumed to be unavailable for work within the meaning of this section.

      (b) The presumption described in paragraph (a) of this subsection may be overcome if the individual establishes to the satisfaction of the director that the individual:

      (A) Has conducted a bona fide search for work and has been reasonably accessible to suitable work in the labor market area in which the individual spent the major portion of the week to which the presumption applies; or

      (B) Was required to be outside the individual’s normal labor market area to apply for suitable employment within the individual’s normal labor market.

      (3) The director shall either promptly allow credit or pay benefits for any week for which benefits are claimed or promptly give notice of denial thereof in the manner provided in ORS 657.267 and 657.268. [Amended by 1955 c.655 §7; 1961 c.631 §8; 1967 c.130 §11; 1973 c.398 §1; 1977 c.295 §3; 1979 c.521 §1; 1993 c.778 §11; 2008 c.23 §3; 2015 c.103 §1]

 

      Note: Section 4, chapter 23, Oregon Laws 2008, provides:

      Sec. 4. Sections 1 and 2 [401.186] of this 2008 Act and the amendments to ORS 657.155 by section 3 of this 2008 Act become operative when federal law permits without penalty a waiver under section 2 of this 2008 Act of the one-week waiting period required by ORS 657.155. [2008 c.23 §4]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 8× “155(l)(c) states a partial definition of availability for work; ORS 657.155(2) states a partial definition of able to work; and ORS 657.”
Anderson v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Res., 546 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 14× “Claimant appeals from a decision of the Appeals Board of the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, denying him unemployment compensation benefits because he was not actively seeking work as required by ORS 657.155. [1] The facts were undisputed.”
Taylor v. Emp. Div., 597 P.2d 780 (Or. 1979). · cites it 9× “” These assertions, however, go to questions presented by ORS 657.155 concerning eligibility for benefits and ORS 657.”
Petro v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Resources, 573 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “Claimant also stated that his search for employment had included five or six contacts each week and that he told all potential employers that he was available for work at any time.”
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985). · cites it 2× “Eligibility for regular unemployment benefits is set forth in ORS 657.155(l)(c) and defined by administrative rule, OAR 471-30-036(4).”
Minton v. Emp. Div., 644 P.2d 632 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 7× “In its order, the Board concluded that: “Concerning her situation with Boise Cascade, we find that the claimant is not able to work within the meaning of ORS 657.155. The employer has determined that the claimant’s medical condition is not such that she is able to safely perform…”
Dennis v. Emp. Div., 728 P.2d 12 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “” 3 ORS 657.155(1) (c) provides: “(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the assistant director finds that: a* * * * * “(c) The individual is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to…”
Doctor v. Emp. Div., 711 P.2d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 7× “ORS 657.155 is an eligibility section; ORS 657.”
Carillo v. Emp. Div., 744 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “The Division then denied benefits on the basis that petitioner was "unavailable" for work within the meaning of ORS 657.155(1)(c), which provides: "(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the assistant director finds…”
Cook v. Emp. Div., 614 P.2d 1193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “He can, therefore, not meet the requirements of ORS 657.155 as he was not unemployed during the weeks in issue.”
Lovendahl v. Emp. Div., 554 P.2d 611 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “In other words, under the above statute, once the Division makes a decision based on the general conditions of eligibility enumerated in ORS 657.155, 1 it is precluded from reversing that determination on any of those grounds.”
Kibble v. Emp. Div., 584 P.2d 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “ORS 657.155. Reversed and remanded. ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(1) — 13 cases
Anderson v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Res., 546 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Claimant appeals from a decision of the Appeals Board of the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, denying him unemployment compensation benefits because he was not actively seeking work as required by ORS 657.155. [1] The facts were undisputed.”
Dennis v. Emp. Div., 728 P.2d 12 (Or. 1986). “” 3 ORS 657.155(1) (c) provides: “(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the assistant director finds that: a* * * * * “(c) The individual is able to work, is available for work, and is actively seeking and unable to…”
Minton v. Emp. Div., 644 P.2d 632 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “In its order, the Board concluded that: “Concerning her situation with Boise Cascade, we find that the claimant is not able to work within the meaning of ORS 657.155. The employer has determined that the claimant’s medical condition is not such that she is able to safely perform…”
Minniti v. Emp. Div., 535 P.2d 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Doctor v. Emp. Div., 711 P.2d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 657.155 is an eligibility section; ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(1)(b) — 1 case
Bostrom v. Emp. Div., 547 P.2d 150 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(1)(c) — 21 cases
Anderson v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Res., 546 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Claimant appeals from a decision of the Appeals Board of the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources, denying him unemployment compensation benefits because he was not actively seeking work as required by ORS 657.155. [1] The facts were undisputed.”
Carillo v. Emp. Div., 744 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “The Division then denied benefits on the basis that petitioner was "unavailable" for work within the meaning of ORS 657.155(1)(c), which provides: "(1) An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the assistant director finds…”
Petro v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Resources, 573 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “Claimant also stated that his search for employment had included five or six contacts each week and that he told all potential employers that he was available for work at any time.”
Doctor v. Emp. Div., 711 P.2d 159 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 657.155 is an eligibility section; ORS 657.”
Derochier v. Emp. Div., 690 P.2d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(1)(e) — 2 cases
Calef v. Emp. Dept., 534 P.3d 302 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Calef v. Emp. Dept. (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(2) — 3 cases
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “155(l)(c) states a partial definition of availability for work; ORS 657.155(2) states a partial definition of able to work; and ORS 657.”
Kibble v. Emp. Div., 584 P.2d 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “ORS 657.155. Reversed and remanded. ORS 657.”
Warnick v. Emp. Div., 619 P.2d 296 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(3) — 2 cases
Von Poppenheim v. Morgan, 497 P.2d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
Cret v. Emp. Dep't, 932 P.2d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(l)(b) — 1 case
Werth v. Emp. Dep't, 359 P.3d 1249 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(l)(c) — 26 cases
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “155(l)(c) states a partial definition of availability for work; ORS 657.155(2) states a partial definition of able to work; and ORS 657.”
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985). “Eligibility for regular unemployment benefits is set forth in ORS 657.155(l)(c) and defined by administrative rule, OAR 471-30-036(4).”
Taylor v. Emp. Div., 597 P.2d 780 (Or. 1979). “” These assertions, however, go to questions presented by ORS 657.155 concerning eligibility for benefits and ORS 657.”
Minton v. Emp. Div., 644 P.2d 632 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “In its order, the Board concluded that: “Concerning her situation with Boise Cascade, we find that the claimant is not able to work within the meaning of ORS 657.155. The employer has determined that the claimant’s medical condition is not such that she is able to safely perform…”
Petro v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Resources, 573 P.2d 1250 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “Claimant also stated that his search for employment had included five or six contacts each week and that he told all potential employers that he was available for work at any time.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(l)(e) — 1 case
Waide v. Emp. Div., 589 P.2d 1138 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.155(l)(f) — 1 case
May Trucking Co. v. Emp. Dep't, 284 P.3d 553 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
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.