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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265 (2026)

Notice of claim filing to employing unit or agent of employing unit

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

      657.265 Notice of claim filing to employing unit or agent of employing unit. When a claimant files an initial claim or an additional claim, the Employment Department promptly shall give written notice of the claim filing to the claimant’s most recent employing unit or agent of the employing unit. If the claimant did not receive or will not receive remuneration from qualifying employment, as described in ORS 657.176, in an amount greater than or equal to four times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount from the claimant’s most recent employing unit, the Employment Department shall notify the claimant’s next previous employing unit or units or agents of the employing unit or units until the Employment Department has notified all of the claimant’s former employing units, or the agents of the employing units, that, in the aggregate, have paid or will pay the claimant remuneration from qualifying employment, as described in ORS 657.176, in an amount that is equal to or exceeds four times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount. [Amended by 1961 c.252 §3; 1965 c.210 §1; 1967 c.435 §3; 1969 c.597 §177; 1971 c.77 §1; 1975 c.257 §6; 1977 c.295 §6; 1981 c.77 §11; 1981 c.751 §3; 1983 c.395 §1; 1983 c.508 §7; 1983 c.522 §1; 1993 c.778 §4; 2009 c.115 §4; 2011 c.22 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases, 1959–2003 · leading case: McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McPherson v. Emp. Div., 591 P.2d 1381 (Or. 1979). · cites it 5× “stant director shall promptly examine each claim to determine whether an individual is subject to disqualification as a result of his separation, termination, leaving, resignation, or disciplinary suspension from work or as a result of the individual's failure to apply for or…”
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 710 P.2d 136 (Or. 1985). · cites it 3× “ORS 657.265. The claimant or the employer may appeal this decision to a referee, also designated by the assistant director, and receive a hearing and review of the decision.”
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “When a claim is made, the claimant’s last employer is notified, ORS 657.265(1), and has an opportunity to communicate any objections to the Employment Division, ORS 657.”
Anderson v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Res., 546 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 6× “Claimant did not receive the first two rejection notices in time to request a hearing within the ten days allowed by ORS 657.265 since his mail was being held in his post office box until his return.”
Johnson v. Emp. Dep't, 67 P.3d 984 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “176(1), ORS 657.265. If the determination is contested, it becomes the subject of a hearing before a referee, who is appointed by the [director].”
Sayers v. Emp. Div., State of Oregon, 650 P.2d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “However, ORS 657.875 provides: “The period within which an interested party may request a hearing or file with the Employment Appeals Board an application for review as provided in ORS 657.”
Giese v. Emp. Div., 557 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “y the administrator shall promptly examine each claim to determine whether an individual is subject to disqualification as a result of his separation, termination, leaving, resignation, or disciplinary suspension from work or as a result of the individual's failure to apply for…”
Gearhart v. Emp. Div., 783 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “290" issues, involving the authority of authorized representatives under ORS 657.265 and of the administrator under ORS 657.”
Trebesch v. Emp. Div., 683 P.2d 1018 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Ultimately, though, we concluded that the requirement that a rule be made rests on the necessities for uniformity of direction in an agency with several operating units throughout the state and for reasonable specificity of direction for those by whom and to whom the statute is…”
Goodwin v. Emp. Div., 581 P.2d 115 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “stant director shall promptly examine each claim to determine whether an individual is subject to disqualification as a result of his separation, termination, leaving, resignation, or disciplinary suspension from work or as a result of the individual’s failure to apply for or…”
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 21× “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 797 P.2d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “tor finds an individual was discharged for misconduct because of the individual’s commission of a felony or theft in connection with the individual’s work, all benefit rights based on wages earned prior to the date of the discharge shall be canceled if the individual’s employer…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(1) — 6 cases
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “When a claim is made, the claimant’s last employer is notified, ORS 657.265(1), and has an opportunity to communicate any objections to the Employment Division, ORS 657.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 797 P.2d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “tor finds an individual was discharged for misconduct because of the individual’s commission of a felony or theft in connection with the individual’s work, all benefit rights based on wages earned prior to the date of the discharge shall be canceled if the individual’s employer…”
Hurst v. Emp. Div., 724 P.2d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
Corvallis Tool Co. v. Emp. Div., 795 P.2d 5576 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(2) — 7 cases
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “When a claim is made, the claimant’s last employer is notified, ORS 657.265(1), and has an opportunity to communicate any objections to the Employment Division, ORS 657.”
Anderson v. Emp. Div., Dept. of Human Res., 546 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). “Claimant did not receive the first two rejection notices in time to request a hearing within the ten days allowed by ORS 657.265 since his mail was being held in his post office box until his return.”
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Emp. Div., 797 P.2d 1066 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “tor finds an individual was discharged for misconduct because of the individual’s commission of a felony or theft in connection with the individual’s work, all benefit rights based on wages earned prior to the date of the discharge shall be canceled if the individual’s employer…”
Hurst v. Emp. Div., 724 P.2d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(3) — 4 cases
Sayers v. Emp. Div., State of Oregon, 650 P.2d 1024 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “However, ORS 657.875 provides: “The period within which an interested party may request a hearing or file with the Employment Appeals Board an application for review as provided in ORS 657.”
Howard v. Emp. Div., 663 P.2d 429 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
Walton v. Emp. Div., 733 P.2d 464 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(4) — 3 cases
Evjen v. Emp. Div., 539 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
Emp. Div. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 794 P.2d 828 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(5) — 2 cases
Oliver v. Emp. Div., 595 P.2d 1252 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “When a claim is made, the claimant’s last employer is notified, ORS 657.265(1), and has an opportunity to communicate any objections to the Employment Division, ORS 657.”
Emp. Div. v. Smith, 666 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.265(6) — 3 cases
Emp. Div. v. Smith, 666 P.2d 1369 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
Kovach v. Emp. Div., 582 P.2d 460 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
Johnson v. Emp. Div., 861 P.2d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “Pursuant to ORS 657.265, employer was mailed a notice of claim form (Form 220), on which he could have challenged Light’s receipt of unemployment benefits.”
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.