Green Thumb Landscape and Maintenance v. BOLI

Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the Court will review the Bureau of Labor and Industries' (BOLI’s) "factual findings for substantial evidence." The Court "does not reweigh the evidence or 'examine the record to determine whether evidence supports a view of the facts different from those found by the agency.'" Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards, 361 Or 761, 776, 399 P3d 969 (2017). "Rather, an agency’s findings of fact are binding on [the court] unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole. Id.

Petitioners sought judicial review for BOLI's decision to debar Petitioners from public works contracts for three years based on a finding that Petitioners intentionally failed to pay the "prevailing wage" to workers. On appeal, Petitioners argued that BOLI’s finding of intentionality was "not supported by substantial evidence." Petitioners attempted to reargue the merits of the case and urged the Court to interpret the evidence in Petitioners' favor. Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the Court will review the BOLI’s "factual findings for substantial evidence." The Court "does not reweigh the evidence or 'examine the record to determine whether evidence supports a view of the facts different from those found by the agency.'" Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards, 361 Or 761, 776, 399 P3d 969 (2017). "Rather, an agency’s findings of fact are binding on [the court] unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole." Id. The Court stated that it would only examine the record for errors of law in BOLI's legal conclusions. The Court held that the record showed "substantial evidence" to support a finding of intentionality. Affirmed.