Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division

557 P.2d 680, 27 Or. App. 909, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 27, 1976

DocketNo. 76-AB-715, CA 6663

StatusPublished

This text of 557 P.2d 680 (Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peerless Pacific Co. v. Employment Division, 557 P.2d 680, 27 Or. App. 909, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

This is a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board finding claimant had good cause to leave employment and granting claimant unemployment compensation benefits.

The Board found that claimant left her employment because petitioner discriminated against her. Though the Board’s opinion is inartfully worded, an examination of the entire findings made by the Board reveals that the Board clearly meant claimant had been discriminated against because she was a woman. As we have previously said, we cannot disturb a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts by the Board even though, were we sitting as triers of fact, we might well reach a different conclusion. Grigsby v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 499, 546 P2d 788 (1976); Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 215, 545 P2d 143, Sup Ct review denied (1976). We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, and that claimant had actually been discriminated against, and that such discrimination was due to her sex. See Fajardo v. Morgan, 15 Or App 454, 516 P2d 495 (1973).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWAB, C. J.

This is a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board finding claimant had good cause to leave employment and granting claimant unemployment compensation benefits.

The Board found that claimant left her employment because petitioner discriminated against her. Though the Board’s opinion is inartfully worded, an examination of the entire findings made by the Board reveals that the Board clearly meant claimant had been discriminated against because she was a woman. As we have previously said, we cannot disturb a reasonable conclusion drawn from the facts by the Board even though, were we sitting as triers of fact, we might well reach a different conclusion. Grigsby v. Employment Div., 24 Or App 499, 546 P2d 788 (1976); Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 215, 545 P2d 143, Sup Ct review denied (1976). We have reviewed the record and conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, and that claimant had actually been discriminated against, and that such discrimination was due to her sex. See Fajardo v. Morgan, 15 Or App 454, 516 P2d 495 (1973).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 P.2d 680, 27 Or. App. 909, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peerless-pacific-co-v-employment-division-orctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack