657.275 Review
by Employment Appeals Board.
(1) If the Director of the Employment Department or any interested party files
with the Employment Appeals Board a timely application for review, the board
shall promptly affirm, modify or set aside the decision of the administrative
law judge. The board shall promptly notify the claimant and any other
interested party of its decision. If the board finds that additional evidence
is required to reach a decision, it may remand the matter to the administrative
law judge to conduct a hearing to obtain additional evidence in the matter. The
board shall promptly notify the claimant and any other interested party of such
action. The administrative law judge may either make a new decision based on
the additional and original evidence or forward the additional evidence to the
board for a decision. If the administrative law judge issues a new decision, it
shall be subject to review in accordance with the provisions of ORS 657.270
(6).
(2) The board
shall perform de novo review on the record. The board may address issues raised
by evidence in the record, including but not limited to the nature of a
separation, notwithstanding the scope of the issues raised by the parties, the
arguments set forth in a party’s application for review or the parties’ written
or oral arguments. The board may enter its own findings and conclusions or may
adopt the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge, or any part
thereof. When there is evidence in the record both to make more probable and
less probable the existence of any basic fact or inference, the board need not
explain its decision to believe or rely on such evidence unless the
administrative law judge has made an explicit credibility determination regarding
the source of such facts or evidence. The board is not required to give any
weight to implied credibility findings. The decision of the board shall become
the final order unless a petition for judicial review is filed in accordance
with ORS 657.282. [Amended by 1959 c.583 §18; 1965 c.210 §3; 1983 c.522 §2;
1985 c.404 §2; 1991 c.328 §1; 1993 c.344 §23; 1999 c.849 §125; 1999 c.1067 §7;
2003 c.75 §101; 2009 c.10 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Circuit Court v. AFSCME Local 502-A (1983)
or · cites it 2×
“ORS 657.275. In addition, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is charged with rulemaking, conciliation and fact finding authority to enforce laws prohibiting discrimination by employers on the basis of race, religion, color, gender, national origin, marital…”
Opp v. Employment Department & Youssef, Inc. (2011)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“Although the EAB is entitled to adopt the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, see ORS 657.275 (“The board may enter its own findings and conclusions or may adopt the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge, or any part thereof.”
Trebesch v. Employment Division (1985)
or
“The parties, including the assistant director, may seek review of the referee’s decision before the EAB, ORS 657.275, OAR 472-20-005, and may further appeal the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals.”
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Division (1992)
or
“282 provides in part: “Judicial review of decisions under ORS 657.275 shall be as provided for review of orders in contested cases in ORS 183.”
Jordan v. Employment Department (2004)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“Put another way, resolving this case requires no rule interpretation because, on the facts of this case, the rule is perfectly clear; deciding the case requires only straightforward application of the law to facts that the EAB is authorized to find de novo, ORS 657.275(2). EAB…”
Cameron v. DeBoard (1962)
or · cites it 2×
“The individual cases were consolidated for appeal under ORS 657.275. The Appeals Board reversed the referee and allowed most of the claims.”
Stevenson v. Morgan (1974)
orctapp
“ORS 657.275 provides that the Board may review decisions of the referee but is silent as to the scope of that review.”
Jenkins v. Board of Parole (1992)
or
“, ORS 657.275 (providing for administrative review by Employment Appeals Board of decisions concerning unemployment benefits); ORS 656.”
Ring v. Employment Department (2006)
orctapp
“ORS 657.275(2). Thus, the authorized representative’s decision was based on an incomplete factual record.”
Publishers Paper Co. v. Morgan (1972)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“The Employment Appeals Board declined to consider petitioner’s claim that the workman was barred under other provisions of the law not determined by the referee, relying on ORS 657.275. ① Petitioner contends this was error.”
Lewis v. International Business MacHines Corp. (1974)
ord
“See ORS 657.275. If Plaintiff foresaw that his civil action could be precluded by the outcome of the Employment Division proceedings and failed to adequately protect his position, considerations of fairness would not weigh so heavily in his favor.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.275(1) — 5 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 657.275(2) — 18 cases
Jordan v. Employment Department (2004)
orctapp
“Put another way, resolving this case requires no rule interpretation because, on the facts of this case, the rule is perfectly clear; deciding the case requires only straightforward application of the law to facts that the EAB is authorized to find de novo, ORS 657.275(2). EAB…”
Opp v. Employment Department & Youssef, Inc. (2011)
orctapp
“Although the EAB is entitled to adopt the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, see ORS 657.275 (“The board may enter its own findings and conclusions or may adopt the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge, or any part thereof.”
Ring v. Employment Department (2006)
orctapp
“ORS 657.275(2). Thus, the authorized representative’s decision was based on an incomplete factual record.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.