Court Opinion

ID: 9528548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:55.393763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:59.218529
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that claimant’s conduct was work-connected misconduct. This case is virtually indistinguishable from Bunnell v. Employment Division, 304 Or 11, 741 P2d 887 (1987). Whether or not Bunnell was correctly decided, we are bound by it. There is no substantial evidence in this record that would permit EAB to make a finding that claimant’s act was not an isolated instance of poor judgment. EAB and the majority’s characterization of his single outburst as “repetitive misconduct” is specious. As in Bunnell, claimant used profanity more than once during the course of a brief, single, heated exchange. Two or three profane words spoken in the course of a few minutes simply does not amount to “repetitive misconduct” that would permit a finding that it was not an isolated instance of poor judgment.
*462For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in my dissent in Velez v. Employment Div., 106 Or App 349, 352, 807 P2d 327 (1991), I dissent.