Lane County v. Employment Department

“The issue depends. . . on whether a reasonable person facing that prospect of discharge would consider the prospect so grave a circumstance that resigning was the only reasonable option. McDowell v. Employment Dept., 348 Or 605, 619 (2010).

Lane County (“County”) sought a review of a decision by the Employment Appeals Board (“EAB”) which concluded that Claimant left work with good cause and therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits. On appeal, the County argued that the EAB erred in concluding that Claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits  The County assigned error in two respects: 1) the EAB erred in crediting Claimant's belief that discharge from the County was likely to occur; and 2) that the EAB erred in concluding that a reasonable person, under the circumstances, would have voluntarily quit. In response, Claimant argued that he left work with good cause because he did not feel that he had a chance of succeeding there, and had he not accepted the settlement from the County, the County would have fired him. “The issue depends. . . on whether a reasonable person facing that prospect of discharge would consider the prospect so grave a circumstance that resigning was the only reasonable option." McDowell v. Employment Dept., 348 Or 605, 619 (2010). The Court determined that the issue is not whether the County would have discharged Claimant, but whether, given the circumstances, a reasonable person of normal senstitivty andexercising ordinary common sense would have thought resigning was the only reasonable option. The Court held the EAB did not err in concluding that a reasonable person in this situation would have believed that leaving work was the only reasonable course of action to take. Affirmed.