Case Name: Sherry ZOTTOLA, Petitioner, v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT and Fair Dismissals Appeals Board, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2005-10-12
Citations: 202 Or. App. 235
Docket Number: FDA-01-5; A122463
Parties: Sherry ZOTTOLA, Petitioner, v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT and Fair Dismissals Appeals Board, Respondents.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 202
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted August 17,
affirmed October 12, 2005,
petition for review allowed March 21, 2006 (340 Or 308)
Sherry ZOTTOLA, Petitioner, v. THREE RIVERS SCHOOL DISTRICT and Fair Dismissals Appeals Board, Respondents.
FDA-01-5; A122463
120 P3d 1255
Elizabeth A. Joffe argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Adam S. Arms and McKanna Bishop Joffe & Sullivan, LLP.
Nancy Hungerford argued the cause for respondent Three Rivers School District. With her on the brief were Jennifer L. Hungerford and The Hungerford Law Firm.
Denise G. Fjordbeck argued the cause for respondent Fair Dismissal Appeals Board. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, a teacher, seeks review of an order of the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board that concluded that she had been wrongfully discharged and determined that the amount of her back-pay award should be offset by certain unemployment benefits petitioner had received. Specifically, the board determined that petitioner's back-pay award should be reduced to the extent that the district had reimbursed the unemployment compensation fund on a "dollar-for-dollar" basis for benefits paid out between petitioner's discharge and her reinstatement. Petitioner, on review, assigns as error the offset of unemployment benefits from the back-pay award. Two prior cases of this court, as well as an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, provide clear guidance and precedent for us to affirm the offset under these circumstances. Seibel v. Liberty Homes, Inc., 305 Or 362, 752 P2d 291 (1988); Filter v. City of Vernonia, 95 Or App 550, 770 P2d 83 (1989); German Auto Parts, Inc. v. BOLI, 11 Or App 522, 826 P2d 1026 (1972).
Affirmed.