303 P.3d 957
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant was Willamette Educational Service District director of fiscal services until resigning effective December 1, 2009; she reported to the superintendent and managed budgets and expenditures; she raised concerns about financial improprieties and IRS/statutory violations starting October 2008; she was on medical leave June–September 2009 and was demoted in some duties upon return; upon resignation she believed continued improper conduct would risk her certification; the EAB initially denied unemployment benefits for leaving without good cause, and the court later remanded for reconsideration which affirmed in substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EAB on reconsideration had substantial evidence and reason. | Claimant: EAB's reconsideration lacked substantial reason. | WESD/EAB: Findings support no good cause given persistence of improprieties. | Yes; EAB decision rested on substantial evidence and reason. |
| Does Campbell I control the outcome as law of the case? | Claimant argues Campbell I bound the result establishing good cause. | Board can analyze November 2009 facts anew; Campbell I did not set law of the case. | Campbell I did not bar reconsideration; not law of the case on the ultimate conclusion. |
| Did EAB properly consider whether claimant would have been required to commit improper acts after December 1, 2009? | Claimant had no reasonable alternative to resigning. | EAB found claimant would not have been required to commit improprieties after December 1, 2009. | Yes; EAB's findings and reasoning supported the decision. |
| Was the EAB's emphasis on not having to engage in improper acts error given the facts? | Claimant contends EAB ignored evidence of retaliation and continued misconduct. | EAB acknowledged but weighed evidence differently, still finding no lack of good cause. | No; substantial evidence supported the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Employment Dept., 245 Or App 573 (2011) (reversed for lack of substantial reason in original reasoning (Campbell I))
- Kercher v. Employment Dept., 250 Or App 409 (2012) (burden to prove good cause by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Endres v. DMV, 255 Or App 226 (2013) (substantial reason requirement for agency decisions)
- SAIF v. Ramos, 252 Or App 361 (2012) (standard for reviewing agency orders: substantial evidence and errors of law)