Court Opinion

ID: 9785703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:16:31.308788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:13.753886
License: Public Domain

LINDER, J.,
concurring.
The result in this case is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the general policies embodied in Oregon’s unemployment compensation statutes. But I agree that our conclusion is compelled by the gaps in the employer’s own drug-testing policy in combination with the particular statutes and rules that apply in this circumstance. I write separately to point out that, but for the terms of OAR 471-030-0130(8)(c), which the majority discusses at 173 Or App at 428-29, I would not hesitate to conclude that a claimant’s adulteration of the urine sample constitutes independently disqualifying misconduct under ORS 165.176(2)(a). The rule, however, forecloses that conclusion, perhaps inadvertently. If no greater good comes from this case, it may at least prompt the Employment Department to consider the consequences of that rule in the possibly unforeseen circumstances of this case, and to refine the rule accordingly.
Landau, P. J., joins in this concurrence.