Ryan L. ROADHOUSE, Petitioner,
EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT; and Masu Sushi, Inc., Respondents.
and Submitted September 3, 2015
Appeals Board 2014EAB0947
Kirsten Rush argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the
brief was Busse & Hunt.
G. Fjordbeck waived appearance for respondent Employment
appearance for respondent Masu Sushi, Inc.
Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Flynn, Judge.
Summary: Claimant seeks judicial review of a final order of
the Employment Appeals Board determining that claimant
"voluntarily left work without good cause" and was
therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits under ORS
657.176(2)(c). The board found that claimant could have
continued to work for employer and alternatively, that
claimant's belief that he was going to be discharged did
not constitute "good cause" to leave work. Claimant
argues that the board's findings are not supported by
substantial evidence and are not rationally related to the
board's findings of fact. Held: The board's
determination that claimant could have continued working for
employer was not supported by substantial reason.
seeks review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board
denying him unemployment insurance benefits because it found
that claimant "voluntarily left work without good
cause." ORS 657.176(2)(c). The board based its
determination that claimant voluntarily left work on its
finding that claimant could have continued working for
employer after he refused to attend a meeting that employer
had scheduled for claimant's day off and at which
claimant believed he would be fired. We review that order for
"substantial evidence, substantial reason, and errors of
law." Franklin v. Employment Dept., 254 Or.App.
656, 657, 294 P.3d 554 (2013). We conclude that the
board's determination that claimant could have continued
working for employer is not supported by substantial reason.
We reverse and remand on that basis, without addressing the
board's decision that claimant lacked "good
cause" to quit.
summarize the facts from the board's findings and from
the undisputed evidence in the record that is not
inconsistent with those findings. Claimant had been employed
as head chef at employer's restaurant for almost four
years when, just before the weekend of Valentine's Day, a
coworker told claimant that employer's
owner had arranged a secret meeting with another
coworker to discuss firing claimant. Claimant did not ask
further questions about the meeting because it was just a
"rumor" and because he needed to get the restaurant
through the busy weekend. However, claimant expected to be
"let go" after he finished his work on Sunday.
Claimant testified that his belief was reinforced when he
noticed that employer changed the locks to the
restaurant's doors on Sunday and saw employer give out a
new key to one of the employees. Employer left the restaurant
Sunday evening before claimant finished his work and without
giving claimant a key.
left the restaurant at about 11:15 p.m. on Sunday and, at
approximately 11:45 p.m., received a text message from
employer asking to meet with claimant the next morning,
February 17, at 9:30 a.m. Although claimant was not scheduled
to work again until February 19, claimant sometimes came into
the restaurant on his days off to do inventory. He responded
to the message and asked to meet at 10:00 a.m. instead of
9:30 a.m. Employer responded, "[O]kay see you
scheduling the meeting, claimant questioned the coworker who
reportedly had attended the secret meeting with employer and
was told that employer had asked if the coworker "could
take over [claimant's] ordering duties" and had said
that claimant was being "fired" because employer
"can't afford [claimant's] salary ...