Legal Opinion

Hoffman Construction Co. v. Employment Department

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 4, 2001No. 99-AB-1505; CA A108110PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*422BREWER, J.

Employer petitions for judicial review of a decision of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Employer asserts that EAB erred in several respects by concluding that employer did not test claimant pursuant to a reasonable pre-employment drug testing policy and that claimant’s act of adulterating his urine sample therefore did not constitute misconduct connected with work. We review EAB’s legal conclusions for errors of law and its factual findings for substantial evidence. ORS 183.482(8). For the reasons discussed below, we…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Andrews v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Adams v. Board of Clinical Social WorkersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Johnson v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  3. Alaska Tanker Co. v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. Hoffman Construction Co. v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API