Holbrook v. Employment Dept.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: June 06, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON SHANNON L. HOLBROOK, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM, Respondents. Employment Appeals Board 11AB0297 A147962 On respondent Employment Department's petition for reconsideration filed March 28, 2012. Opinion filed March 14, 2012. 248 Or App 754, 273 P3d 375. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Attorney-in-Charge, Civil/Administrative Appeals, for petition. Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Rasmussen, Judge pro tempore. HASELTON, C. J. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed. 1 HASELTON, C. J. 2 Respondent Employment Department petitions for reconsideration of our 3 decision in Holbrook v. Employment Dept., 248 Or App 754, 273 P3d 375 (2012), in 4 which we reversed and remanded the order of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) for 5 reconsideration, citing Opp v. Employment Dept., 242 Or App 673, 259 P3d 15 (2011). 6 In Opp, we had held that, where EAB affirms the order of an administrative law judge 7 without opinion, EAB's order is "insufficient to meet the standards of ORS 183.470(2)" 8 and we must remand the case to EAB to make findings and explain how those findings 9 support its conclusion. 242 Or App at 676. However, as the department correctly notes 10 in its petition for reconsideration, before we issued our decision in this case, EAB had 11 withdrawn its original order and filed an order on reconsideration in which it made 12 factual findings and explained why its findings support its determination that claimant is 13 not entitled to unemployment benefits. For that reason, we erred in reversing and 14 remanding EAB's order in light of Opp. Accordingly, we allow the department's petition 15 for reconsideration and address the merits of claimant's appeal. 16 As to the merits, we write briefly to address claimant's contention that EAB 17 erred in determining that her actions were connected with work and reject her other 18 contentions without discussion. We state the facts consistently with those found by EAB, 19 which are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Claimant was a security 20 officer whose employment duties involved driving an employer-owned vehicle. Because 21 employer insured employees who drove its vehicles, employer had a policy that 1 1 prohibited high-risk drivers from operating those vehicles. In sum, the policy assigned 2 points to various traffic violations and prohibited an employee from driving an 3 employer's vehicle if the employee incurred more than five points on his or her driving 4 record. Because claimant had committed several traffic violations for speeding and had 5 incurred more than five points on her driving record, employer and claimant agreed to a 6 work plan under which claimant was prohibited from driving employer's vehicles for a 7 period of time.1 Further, the work plan indicated that, if claimant committed any further 8 traffic violations causing her to incur more points on her driving record, she could be 9 terminated. Thereafter, in July 2010, claimant committed another traffic violation by 10 exceeding the posted speed limit while driving a vehicle off duty. Employer discharged 11 claimant for violating her work plan by committing the July 2010 traffic violation. 12 EAB reasoned that, "[b]ecause the employer discharged claimant for off- 13 duty conduct, the first issue is whether claimant's conduct was 'connected with work,' so 14 that the employer had the right to prohibit such conduct." Ultimately, EAB determined 15 that claimant's off-duty conduct--that is, her off-duty driving record--was connected with 16 work. Specifically, EAB reasoned that, "[b]ecause the employer insured employees who 17 drove its vehicles, and reasonably did not want 'high risk drivers' operating its vehicles, 18 we conclude that claimant's off-duty driving record was connected with her work for the 19 employer." Under the circumstances of this case, we agree that EAB's determination is 1 Further, the work plan stated, in part, "This work plan cannot be kept completely confidential since other security staff members will need to pick up work duties for [claimant], since she is not insurable to drive by the hospital insurance company rules." 2 1 supported by substantial evidence and comports with substantial reason. See Levu v. 2 Employment Dept., 149 Or App 29, 33, 941 P2d 1056 (1997) ("In making our inquiry 3 into whether claimant's off-duty conduct is 'connected with work,' we have generally 4 looked at whether claimant's off-duty conduct had any actual impact in the workplace."); 5 Erne v. Employment Div., 109 Or App 629, 633, 820 P2d 875 (1991) ("[O]ff-duty 6 conduct must affect or have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the employee's work or 7 the employer's workplace in order to constitute work-connected misconduct."). 8 Reconsideration allowed; former opinion withdrawn; affirmed. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
