Potter v. Employment Dept.

342 Or. App. 522

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: A183100
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

522 August 6, 2025 No. 715

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Brittani K. POTTER, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, Respondent. Employment Appeals Board 2023EAB1143; A183100

Submitted July 7, 2025. Brittani Potter filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 342 Or App 522 (2025) 523

EGAN, J. Claimant, appearing pro se, seeks judicial review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board (EAB), which denied her application for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA). On appeal, claimant argues that the EAB erred in finding that she failed to show that her activities constituted self-employment. We review the EAB’s order for “substantial evidence, substantial reason, and legal error,” Kroetch v. Employment Dept., 289 Or App 291, 297, 409 P3d 60 (2017). We affirm. In May 2021, claimant submitted an affidavit, stat- ing, “My self-employment business has been substantially affected and destroyed by the pandemic[’s] effect on our econ- omy.” Her business consisted of “recycling” women’s cloth- ing by acquiring those items at Goodwill or other no-cost or low-cost sources and then reselling those items at swap meets or on Facebook. Goodwill closed temporarily during the pandemic under the orders of the state. When the store reopened, Goodwill imposed restrictions on purchases. During the course of operating her business, claim- ant did not register as a business with the Oregon Secretary of State; she did not have a business license; she did not pay business taxes; neither did she make enough profit for her activity to be liable to pay income or self-employment taxes; and so she did not present to the Employment Department any business records or receipts. EAB determined that claimant was not eligible for PUA, because she was not a “covered individual” under 15 USC § 9021(a)(3)(A). In her sole assignment of error, claimant challenges that ruling. Specifically, claimant asserts that she was a “covered individual” under 15 USC § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), because her recycling activities constituted self-employment. We understand claimant to assert that she was a “covered indi- vidual” under 15 USC § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), because she was a “self-employed individual[ ] who experienced a significant dim- inution of services because of the COVID-19 public health emer- gency.” U. S. Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter, No. 16-20, Change 2 (July 21, 2020) at 2 (providing that, as authorized by 15 USC § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i)-(ii), PUA benefits 524 Potter v. Employment Dept.

are available to certain self-employed individuals). The EAB determined that claimant did not qualify as a “self-employed individual,” however, because she was not an individual whose “primary reliance for income is on the performance of services in the individual’s own business, or on the individual’s own farm.” 20 CFR § 625.2(n) (defining “self-employed individual”). On this record, we can discern no error in EAB’s determina- tion. As EAB concluded in an earlier benefits determination involving claimant, which EAB referenced in the order that is now before us on judicial review, the record does not show that anyone received a service or derived any benefit from claim- ant’s clothing recycling activities. Consequently, we affirm EAB’s order. Affirmed.