Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co.

347 Or. App. 80

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: A179138
• Status: Published

Opinion

80 February 11, 2026 No. 84

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

ATHENA, Leila Barbeau, and Aaron St. Pierre, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PELICAN BREWING COMPANY and Kiwanda Hospitality Group, Ltd., Defendants-Appellants. Tillamook County Circuit Court 20CV33103; A179138

Eve L. Miller, Judge. On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed December 5, 2025. Opinion filed November 26, 2025, 345 Or App 172, __ P3d __ (2025). Jon M. Egan for petition. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. PER CURIAM Petition for reconsideration denied. Cite as 347 Or App 80 (2026) 81

PER CURIAM Respondents petition for reconsideration of our opinion in Athena v. Pelican Brewing Co., 345 Or App 172, __ P3d __ (2025), to correct two asserted scrivener’s errors. For the following reasons, we deny the motion. The first asserted error is our first use of the term “wage” in footnote 1 on page 176 of the opinion, which respondent asks us to change to “a penalty” or “a wage and a penalty.” Having reviewed our opinion and the decision that we cite in the footnote, Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC, 300 Or App 471, 480, 455 P3d 569 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 382 (2020), we decline to amend the opinion. The second asserted error is our first use of the term “meal period” in the following sentence on page 183: “Unlike the 10-minute meal period described in OAR 839- 020-0050(6)(a), an employer may deduct a full 30-minute meal period from an employee’s pay, which suggests that BOLI considered 30 minutes enough time to allow an employee to use the meal period for their own purposes.” Since the filing of respondent’s petition, our first use of the phrase “meal period” in that sentence has been changed to “rest period.” The sentence now reads: “Unlike the 10-minute rest period described in OAR 839- 020-0050(6)(a), an employer may deduct a full 30-minute meal period from an employee’s pay, which suggests that BOLI considered 30 minutes enough time to allow an employee to use the meal period for their own purposes.” As a result, that basis for respondent’s petition is moot. Petition for reconsideration denied.