Legal Opinion

City of Portland v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 7, 1988No. EAB 88-AB-376; CA A48102PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Employer seeks review of EAB’s decision that claimant, who was discharged as a police officer for unlawful possession and use of cocaine and for other related violations of employer’s rules, is eligible for unemployment compensation. EAB found that claimant was addicted to alcohol and cocaine and that, because of his addiction, his misconduct was not “wilful.”

In James River Corp. v. Employment Division, 94 Or App 268, 765 P2d 217 (1988), we reversed and remanded EAB’s order allowing benefits to a claimant who was fired for on-the-job intoxication. The essence of our reasoning was that EAB…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Glide Lumber Products Co. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Christensen v. Employment DivivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. James River Corp. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  4. Kaeding v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. National Gypsum Co. v. Kansas Employment Security Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
  2. Veneer v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. Monday v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  4. Veneer v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API