Reynolds v. Employment Department, 259 P.3d 50

Claimant admitted reading coworkers' e-mails and told HR she did so; policy about e-mail use existed but policy specifics were not identified to claimant.
Claimant believed discharge was unwarranted and wished to avoid a discharge because she could grieve under a union-represented, progressive discipline system.
Claimant quit to avoid a discharge, based on employer's indication she would be discharged if she did not resign.
ALJ found no misconduct but that claimant voluntarily left without good cause; board affirmed the voluntary-quit finding, citing lack of evidence that she could have remained employed under progressive discipline.
Record lacked evidence that the progressive discipline policy allowed a delay or required procedures before dismissal; remand requested to determine if claimant could have stayed employed longer.
Supreme Court vacated this court's prior decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of McDowell v. Employment Dept.; panel reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant's quit was with good cause	Claimant argued she quit to avoid an unwarranted discharge and had right to grieve under union protections.	Board found no good cause since she could have waited under progressive discipline and potentially avoided discharge.	Remanded to resolve whether evidence supports a longer-employment possibility under policy.
Whether substantial evidence supports the board's finding of voluntary quit	Claimant contends the board erred by relying on lack of evidence of specific procedures to find voluntary quit.	Board concluded voluntary quit based on circumstances that she believed discharge was imminent and she chose to resign.	Remanded for reconsideration consistent with McDowell.
Whether the board properly considered the progressive-disciplown policy as affecting quit vs. discharge	There was no evidence the policy allowed delay or required steps before dismissal; the board did not properly evaluate policy impact.	Policy existed but its effect on the timing of dismissal was not proven; board erred in assuming no potential delay.	Remanded to determine if policy could have sustained continued employment.

McDowell v. Employment Dept., 348 Or. 605 (Or. 2010) (addressed initial discharge-vs-quit framework and effects on eligibility; supports remand when policy timeline unclear)