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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.345 (2026)

Approval of programs by director

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      657.345 Approval of programs by director. (1) Individuals who are identified as dislocated workers under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and implementing regulations, and who attend training programs identified under the Act shall be considered to be in approved career and technical training. The training shall be for occupations or skills for which there are or are expected to be reasonable employment opportunities in the area or in another area to which the individual is willing to relocate or which relate to the development of a self-employment enterprise for which there is reasonable opportunity for success.

      (2) In approving career and technical training for eligible dislocated workers who do not attend training programs identified in subsection (1) of this section, the Director of the Employment Department shall require:

      (a) That the career and technical training relates to an occupation or skill for which there are, or are expected to be, reasonable employment opportunities in this state or relates to the development of a self-employment enterprise for which there is a reasonable opportunity for success.

      (b) That the individual has the qualifications and aptitudes to successfully complete such career and technical training. [1969 c.156 §7; 1971 c.82 §4; 1983 c.9 §1; 1991 c.685 §7; 2001 c.684 §30; 2009 c.94 §26; 2017 c.185 §15; 2017 c.297 §33]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1972–1984 · leading case: Hickam v. Morgan, 495 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hickam v. Morgan, 495 P.2d 1243 (Or. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “The pivotal statute is ORS 657.345, which defines the circumstances under which benefits of the nature sought by claimant are available: ① “In approving such course for an individual the administrator shall consider, among other factors, the following: “(1) Whether such course…”
Kirchem v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “3 ORS 657.345 was amended, in part, because very few claimants qualified for benefits.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.345(1): 1 case
Kirchem v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “3 ORS 657.345 was amended, in part, because very few claimants qualified for benefits.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.345(1)(d): 1 case
Kirchem v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “3 ORS 657.345 was amended, in part, because very few claimants qualified for benefits.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.345(l)(d): 1 case
Kirchem v. Emp. Div., 680 P.2d 1006 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “3 ORS 657.345 was amended, in part, because very few claimants qualified for 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.