657.205
Deduction of retirement pay; exceptions. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) to
(5) of this section, an individual is disqualified for benefits for any week
with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has
received a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity,
or other similar periodic payment based on the previous work of the individual,
if payment is received under a plan maintained or contributed to by a base year
employer of the individual.
(2) In
determining disqualification for any week under subsection (1) of this section,
if the remuneration and payments referred to in subsection (1) of this section
cover a period greater than and include such week, a pro rata share of such
remuneration and payments shall be apportioned to such week or weeks. Except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section, such payments made in a lump sum
upon separation or in weekly or other installments shall be considered as
payments with respect to weeks following separation without regard to the
existence or lack thereof of an employee-employer relationship during the weeks
such pay is allocated pursuant to rules of the Director of the Employment
Department.
(3) An individual
is not disqualified for benefits and the director may not reduce benefits under
this section to an individual who:
(a) If otherwise
eligible, is entitled to benefits for any week;
(b) Is a dislocated
worker who has been terminated as a result of any permanent closure of or any
substantial layoff at a plant, facility or enterprise; and
(c) Elects to
receive a payment referred to in subsection (1) of this section in a lump sum.
(4) If payments
referred to in subsection (1) of this section are being received by an
individual under the federal Social Security Act, the director shall take into
account the individual’s contribution and make no reduction in the weekly
benefit amount.
(5) If under this
section the remuneration and payments, or the pro rata share thereof, in any
week are less than the benefits which would otherwise be due under this chapter
for such week, such individual is entitled to receive for such week, if otherwise
eligible, benefits reduced by the amount of such remuneration and payments. [Amended
by 1955 c.655 §13; 1957 c.699 §4; 1963 c.468 §1; 1969 c.569 §2; 1973 c.380 §1;
1975 c.661 §1; 1977 c.294 §3; 1979 c.185 §1; 1981 c.62 §1; 1983 c.157 §1; 1985
c.432 §1; 1987 c.270 §1; 2001 c.663 §1]
Notes of Decisions
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1992)
or · cites it 8×
“When petitioner filed an unemployment compensation claim, the Division denied her benefits on the ground that petitioner should be disqualified because she had “received” retirement benefits within the meaning of ORS 657.205 3 and an administrative rule, OAR 471-30-020.”
Lane v. Employment Department (2009)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“Its analysis was based on ORS 657.205, the statute that governs the effect of the receipt of a claimant’s retirement payments on his or her unemployment benefits.”
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1990)
orctapp · cites it 11×
“ORS 657.205 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [A]n individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic…”
Gollender v. Morgan (1974)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“” ORS 657.205 (1) (a). ① *106 Petitioner was employed in 1966 as a professor at Pacific University pursuant to a contract for the ‘academic year,’ which was from September 1 to on or about May 31.”
Hayes v. Employment Division (1983)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“205 provides in part: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, an individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received: “(a) Remuneration as a dismissal or…”
Hanna v. Employment Division (1976)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“Claimant appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) which concluded that he was not entitled to unemployment benefits on the ground that he was receiving a guaranteed wage, ORS 657.205(1)(a). Claimant is employed by the Portland School District as a teacher…”
Zimbrick v. Morgan (1970)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“100 provides: “An individual is deemed ‘unemployed’ in any week during which he performs no services and with respect to which no wages are payable to him * * ORS 657.205, before its 1969 amendment, provided: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this…”
Hawkins v. Employment Division (1976)
orctapp · cites it 6×
“Employment Division, 20 Or App 203 , 530 P2d 850 (1975), we held that where temporarily laid off employes had vacation pay coming, it was proper for the board under ORS 657.205 to apply vacation pay to the first weeks of the layoff period so that *448 employes were disqualified…”
Publishers Paper Co. v. Morgan (1972)
orctapp
“Neither the Request for Hearing nor the notice thereof contended that the claimant was ineligible under ORS 657.205 or any other provision of the laiv, as the employer now contends.”
Employment Division v. Yamhill County (1980)
orctapp · cites it 9×
“At issue is the Board’s interpretation of subsection (1), (b), (A) of ORS 657.205, the unemployment compensation benefits disqualification section, which is set out infra.”
Hens v. Employment Division (1982)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“ORS 657.205(1) (a) provides: OAR 471-30-020(3) provides: “Weeks with respect to which guaranteed wage payments or dismissal or separation allowances have been apportioned or allocated in accordance with ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(1) — 7 cases
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1992)
or
“When petitioner filed an unemployment compensation claim, the Division denied her benefits on the ground that petitioner should be disqualified because she had “received” retirement benefits within the meaning of ORS 657.205 3 and an administrative rule, OAR 471-30-020.”
Lane v. Employment Department (2009)
orctapp
“Its analysis was based on ORS 657.205, the statute that governs the effect of the receipt of a claimant’s retirement payments on his or her unemployment benefits.”
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1990)
orctapp
“ORS 657.205 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [A]n individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic…”
Hayes v. Employment Division (1983)
orctapp
“205 provides in part: “(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of this section, an individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received: “(a) Remuneration as a dismissal or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(1)(a) — 2 cases
Hanna v. Employment Division (1976)
orctapp
“Claimant appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) which concluded that he was not entitled to unemployment benefits on the ground that he was receiving a guaranteed wage, ORS 657.205(1)(a). Claimant is employed by the Portland School District as a teacher…”
Hens v. Employment Division (1982)
orctapp
“ORS 657.205(1) (a) provides: OAR 471-30-020(3) provides: “Weeks with respect to which guaranteed wage payments or dismissal or separation allowances have been apportioned or allocated in accordance with ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(2) — 5 cases
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1992)
or
“When petitioner filed an unemployment compensation claim, the Division denied her benefits on the ground that petitioner should be disqualified because she had “received” retirement benefits within the meaning of ORS 657.205 3 and an administrative rule, OAR 471-30-020.”
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1990)
orctapp
“ORS 657.205 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [A]n individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic…”
Hawkins v. Employment Division (1976)
orctapp
“Employment Division, 20 Or App 203 , 530 P2d 850 (1975), we held that where temporarily laid off employes had vacation pay coming, it was proper for the board under ORS 657.205 to apply vacation pay to the first weeks of the layoff period so that *448 employes were disqualified…”
Hens v. Employment Division (1982)
orctapp
“ORS 657.205(1) (a) provides: OAR 471-30-020(3) provides: “Weeks with respect to which guaranteed wage payments or dismissal or separation allowances have been apportioned or allocated in accordance with ORS 657.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(4) — 1 case
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1990)
orctapp
“ORS 657.205 provides, in pertinent part: “(1) [A]n individual is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the individual is receiving, will receive, or has received a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(5) — 1 case
Lane v. Employment Department (2009)
orctapp
“Its analysis was based on ORS 657.205, the statute that governs the effect of the receipt of a claimant’s retirement payments on his or her unemployment benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.205(l)(a) — 1 case
Hawkins v. Employment Division (1976)
orctapp
“Employment Division, 20 Or App 203 , 530 P2d 850 (1975), we held that where temporarily laid off employes had vacation pay coming, it was proper for the board under ORS 657.205 to apply vacation pay to the first weeks of the layoff period so that *448 employes were disqualified…”
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.