Legal Opinion

James River Corp. v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 7, 1988No. 88-AB-99; CA A47539PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Claimant was discharged for being intoxicated while at work at employer’s paper mill. His condition was the culmination of a day of heavy drinking which preceded his reporting to work. Employer seeks review of EAB’s decision that, because claimant is an alcoholic, his misconduct was not “wilful,” ORS 657.176(2)(a); OAR 471-30-038(3), and he is therefore entitled to unemployment compensation. We reverse and remand.

EAB reasoned:

“We would point out that our affirmation [of the referee] is based upon our conclusion that the claimant was an alcoholic and had no control over his drinking. His…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Christensen v. Employment DivivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  2. Erickson v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  3. Gething v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  4. Kaeding v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  5. Dean v. Guard Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Steele v. Employment DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  2. City of Portland v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  3. Portland General Electric Co. v. Employment DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  4. Barrera v. Employment Dept.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API