Deschutes County v. Employment Division

Citations: 82 Or. App. 630; 728 P.2d 950; 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 4592Docket: 85-AB-1958; CA A38760

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; December 3, 1986; Oregon; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Employer seeks judicial review of an Employment Appeal Board (EAB) order that reversed a referee's decision disqualifying Cooper from unemployment benefits due to work-related misconduct, specifically insubordination. The employer argues that Cooper's actions constituted misconduct as a matter of law and that the EAB erred in its conclusion. The facts are undisputed and supported by substantial evidence.

Key findings include:

1. Cooper was employed as a Resident Deputy Sheriff from July 1, 1978, to June 2, 1984.
2. He initiated a meeting regarding alleged misconduct by a Redmond Police Department detective due to concerns about a possible informant in the department.
3. Following an investigation instructed by the Sheriff, Cooper submitted a report that the Sheriff deemed inadequate, prompting specific requests for additional information.
4. Despite being given extra time, Cooper failed to provide the required details and was warned of a pending suspension if not completed by May 18.
5. He did not attend a pre-termination hearing scheduled for June 2 and was subsequently discharged on June 4 for insubordination related to his failure to disclose sources of information from his investigation.
6. Cooper asserted that revealing the names of confidential informants could lead to repercussions, a claim unsupported by evidence of any legal privilege regarding confidentiality.

The referee concluded that Cooper's discharge was due to work-related misconduct, but the EAB's ruling that he was not discharged for misconduct is reversed, and the case is remanded for reconsideration.

Claimant's belief that revealing names could lead to repercussions is deemed speculation. The referee determined that Cooper's insubordination was not an excusable isolated incident of poor judgment, as he had previously completed reports involving other law enforcement officers. His failure to provide requested information to the Sheriff demonstrated a pattern of insubordination rather than a singular error. The Employment Appeals Board (EAB) adopted the referee's findings but overlooked the conclusion of misconduct, stating that if Cooper's inaction constituted misconduct, it did not appear to be more than a single poor judgment incident. A dissenting EAB member argued that such insubordination could hinder the functioning of a law enforcement department, pointing out Cooper's history of refusing orders and attending hearings. The EAB's rationale lacked clarity, failing to explain the discrepancy between the findings of fact and its conclusion, which led to the determination that Cooper was not disqualified from benefits. The document emphasizes that misconduct includes willful violations of expected behavior, while isolated poor judgment does not. Cooper's appeal to dismiss as moot was rejected, as he may have exhausted benefits, but the employer could seek recovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further consideration, highlighting a need for a thorough explanation of EAB's decision regarding Cooper's alleged misconduct.