Legal Opinion
Ortega v. Employment Security Department
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided April 6, 1998No. 38718-9-I, 40905-1-IPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
These two cases arise from the 1995 and 1996 labor reductions at Westinghouse Hanford in response to budget constraints and funding uncertainties with the Department of Energy. Teresa Ortega and Michael Bell elected to participate in different phases of Westinghouse’s Special Voluntary Reduction of Force (SVROF) incentive program and were denied unemployment benefits by the Department. We granted the Employment Security Department’s motion to consolidate these cases because they are factually similar and require us to answer the same legal question—whether the workers who participated in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tapper v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Safeco Insurance v. MeyeringWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- MacEy v. Department of Employment SecurityWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Davis v. Department of Employment SecurityWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Federated American Insurance v. MarquardtWashington Supreme Court · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Wash. Emp. SEC. Dept.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
- COBRA ROOFING SERVICE, INC. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Cobra Roofing Service, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- BE & K. CONST. v. AbbottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.