Senvoy, LLC v. Employment Department

“A party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [its] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632 (2013).

Petitioner, Senvoy, LLC, sought review the Employment Department (“department”)’s final order affirming multiple unemployment tax assessments. Petitioner assigned multiple errors to the Department’s ruling for failing to adjudicate two issues. Petitioner claimed that the Department failed to address the mileage reimbursement and out-of-state driver issues. The Department argued that Petitioner failed to properly preserve the argument and actually invited the ALJ to ignore the issues. “A party must provide the trial court with an explanation of [its] objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately.” State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 632 (2013). The Court agreed with the Department’s argument and ruled that Petitioner did not properly preserve its assignment of error. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner ambiguously raised concerns about the two issues during its stipulation to the total amount of wages subject to unemployment taxation. The Court reasoned that because the ALJ clearly understood Petitioner to be stipulating to the amount, the ALJ did not need to address the issues raised by Petitioner. Affirmed.