and submitted April 17, 2015
of Administrative Hearings
M. Hooton argued the cause and fled the briefs for
G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause
for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla
H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General.
Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett,
judicial review, petitioner challenges an order that denied
petitioner's requests for "relief of charges"
to its unemployment insurance account under ORS 657.471(9).
The department denied petitioner's request for relief of
charges, concluding that petitioner failed to establish that
it satisfied the requirement in ORS 657.471(9)(a) that it
"furnish[ ] part-time work to the [claimant] during the
base year" and the requirement in ORS 657.471(9)(b) that
the claimant "has become eligible for benefits because
of loss of employment with one or more other employers."
Petitioner argues that it should have been relieved of
charges related to a second year of unemployment benefits
paid to its part-time employee because it satisfied all the
requirements of ORS 657.471(9).
satisfied the requirements of ORS 657.471(9) because it
provided part-time work to the claimant during the relevant
base year, and the claimant's eligibility for a second
year of unemployment benefits was due to the loss of
employment with an "other employer" during the base
ORTEGA, P. J.
provided part-time employment to Hooten, a former employee of
Kaiser Permanente who was receiving unemployment benefits.
Petitioner requests judicial review of an order of an
administrative law judge (ALJ) that affirmed the Oregon
Employment Department's denial of petitioner's
request for "relief of charges" to its unemployment
insurance account under ORS Q57A7\(9) Petitioner argues
on review that it should have been relieved of charges
related to a second year of unemployment benefits paid to
Hooten, because, in accordance with that statute, (1) Hooten
lost full-time employment with Kaiser during the "base
year"; (2) petitioner employed Hooten part-time during
the "base year" and at the time of the assessment
of charges; and (3) Hooten's eligibility for benefits was
factually related to her loss of employment with Kaiser. The
ALJ concluded that petitioner was not entitled to relief of
charges under ORS 657.471(9) because Hooten was not
petitioner's part-time employee at the time she lost her
employment with Kaiser, and Hooten's eligibility for a
second year of unemployment benefits was not "because of
[her] loss of employment" with Kaiser. On review,
petitioner challenges the ALJ's decision, arguing that
the statute does not require "simultaneous"
employment by two or more employers, and asserting that
Hooten's loss of employment with Kaiser was the reason
that she was eligible for a second year of unemployment
benefits. We conclude that the ALJ erred in her application
of ORS 657.471(9) and that petitioner had indeed satisfied
the requirements of that statute. Accordingly, we reverse and
following facts are undisputed. Hooten filed a claim for
unemployment benefits in October 2011 after Kaiser Permanente
terminated her employment that same month. The department
approved her claim and awarded benefits. Hooten began working
part time for petitioner six months later in April 2012, and
she continued to collect unemployment benefits. When her
initial "benefit year" expired on October 20, 2012,
the department denied her application for benefits for the
week of October 21, 2012, through October 27, 2012.
Accordingly, Hooten contacted the department and was told
that she was eligible to file a new claim. She did so, and
the department determined that she was eligible for
unemployment benefits for a "second benefit year."
It further determined that, because petitioner had paid
Hooten wages during the relevant "base
year"-July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012-petitioner
was a "base year employer" and, under ORS
657.471(1),  was subject to potential
"charges" to its account for benefits paid to
Hooten. "Charges" are used in part to calculate an
employer's unemployment insurance rate. See ORS
657.462 (establishing a method for calculating the
"benefit ratio" and assigning the unemployment tax
rate using "charges" to the employer's record).
The department sent petitioner notice of the potential
charges and petitioner requested relief from those charges
under ORS 657.471. The department denied relief, citing
Hooten's continued employment with petitioner.
Petitioner's appeal of that decision was referred to the
Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case
hearing. At issue during the contested case hearing was the
applicability of ORS 657.471(9). That statute provides:
"Benefits paid to an individual may not be charged to a
base year employer if: "(a) The employer furnished
part-time work to the individual during the base year;
"(b) The individual has become eligible for benefits
because of loss of employment with one or more other
"(c) The employer has continued to furnish part-time
work to the individual in substantially the same amount as
during the ...