Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. Pub. Emps. Ret. Bd. & John T. Wigle, 442 P.3d 596

John Wigle worked for EWEB in three temporary assignments through Kelly Services (a staffing firm); the central assignment began Nov. 1, 1982 and lasted almost a year.
While working at EWEB as a temporary worker, Wigle performed work under EWEB supervisors, used EWEB equipment, followed EWEB protocols, and was subject to EWEB performance reviews, but was paid by Kelly Services and received no employee benefits or PERS contributions.
Wigle was later hired as a regular EWEB employee effective Feb. 1, 1986; EWEB began PERS contributions and Wigle became a PERS member six months later (Aug. 1, 1986).
In 2010–2012 EWEB adjusted Wigle’s PERS start date first backward to Nov. 1, 1982 (creating additional credited service) then sought to reverse that, prompting administrative proceedings. PERS ultimately referred the dispute to an ALJ.
The Public Employees Retirement Board and the Court of Appeals held Wigle became PERS-eligible based on having been in a common-law employment relationship with EWEB beginning Nov. 1, 1982, notwithstanding Kelly Services paid his wages.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutory phrase "in the service of a public employer" most likely meant employees on the public employer’s payroll (with known salary and payroll deductions), not merely those later found to have a common-law employment relationship while paid by a third party.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a worker paid by a temporary-staffing company but working under a public employer’s control is "in the service of a public employer" for PERS eligibility	Wigle/Board: "In the service of" means performing work for or employment by the public employer; common-law employee status suffices even if paid by a third party	EWEB: "In the service of" requires being in an employment-payroll relationship with the public employer (public-employer payroll withholding and known salary)	Court held PERS membership requires being on the public employer’s payroll (pay period/payroll context), not merely later-determined common-law employment

Moro v. State of Oregon, 357 Or. 167, 351 P.3d 1 (overview of PERS membership and funding)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 859 P.2d 1143 (use of statutory context)
Brown v. SAIF, 361 Or. 241, 391 P.3d 773 (interpretation in statutory scheme context)
Halperin v. Pitts, 352 Or. 482, 287 P.3d 1069 (using later statutes as indirect evidence of consistent terminology)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (statutory-construction framework)
Engweiler v. Persson/Dept. of Corrections, 354 Or. 549, 316 P.3d 264 (court must reach correct statutory interpretation regardless of party arguments)
Eugene Water & Elec. Bd. v. PERB, 289 Or. App. 302, 410 P.3d 1026 (Court of Appeals decision affirmed board below; later reversed)