[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-277981-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-277981-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","employment-appeals-board-decision-2018-eab-0187-disqualification-affirmed","Employment Appeals Board Decision 2018-EAB-0187 - Disqualification - Affirmed","","Employment Appeals Board decision 2018-EAB-0187 affirms a disqualification determination arising from the Oregon Employment Department’s conclusion that the claimant voluntarily left work without good cause. The procedural record describes the Department’s notice, an ALJ hearing decision, and the claimant’s application for review. The review focuses on the timing of a written argument and a memory card submission, neither of which was accepted because they introduced new information not part of the hearing record and were filed outside required deadlines.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/employment-appeals-board-decision-2018-eab-0187-disqualification-affirmed/277981/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/employment-appeals-board-decision-2018-eab-0187-disqualification-affirmed/277981.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Oliver","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What did the Employment Appeals Board decide in 2018-EAB-0187?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The Employment Appeals Board affirmed the disqualification determination for leaving work without good cause.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why did the Board not consider the written argument and memory card?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Both were not accepted as part of the hearing record and the memory card was submitted after the applicable deadline.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did the Board require for new information to be considered?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The claimant was required to explain why the additional information could not be presented at the hearing or show circumstances beyond her reasonable control prevented offering it as evidence.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},277981,1790465378,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,122],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates","papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},8796095461610,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","EO: 200  \nBYE: 201845  \nState of Oregon  \nEmployment Appeals Board  \n875 Union St. N.E.  \nSalem, OR 97311  \n0703 DS 005.00  \nEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD DECISION  \n2018-EAB-0187  \nAffirmed  \nDisqualification  \nPROCEDURAL HISTORY: On December 15, 2017, the Oregon Employment Department (the Department) served notice of an administrative decision concluding claimant voluntarily left work without good cause (decision \\# 92935) . Claimant filed a timely request for hearing. On January 29, 2018, ALJ Clink conducted a hearing, and on January 31, 2018 issued Hearing Decision 18-UI-102133, affirming the Department’s decision. On February 20, 2018, claimant filed an application for review with the Employment Appeals Board (EAB) .  \nClaimant submitted a written argument that EAB received by fax on March 15, 2017, the final day on which it could have been transmitted and still considered timely filed if received during normal business hours. See OAR 471-041-0080(1) (October 29, 2006) . While the argument included many documents that were not offered into evidence during the hearing, claimant did not explain why she was not able to present this information at the hearing or otherwise show that factors or circumstances beyond her reasonable control prevented her from doing so as required by OAR 471-041-0090(2) (October 29, 2006) . For his reason, EAB did not consider the new information that claimant sought to present by way of her written argument when reaching this decision.  \nAlong with her written argument, claimant also submitted a memory card to EAB, but submitted it after the deadline expired. On March 16, 2017, EAB denied claimant’s request for an extension of time to submit the memory card as a second part to her written argument; we therefore did not consider the contents ofthe memory card when reaching this decision. Even had EAB allowed claimant’s request for an extension of time, though, EAB still would not have considered the contents ofthe memory card since, just like the written argument received on March 15, 2017, the memory card contained new information that was not part of the hearing record, and claimant failed to show that factors or circumstances beyond her reasonable control prevented her from offering the memory card or the items stored on it into evidence at the hearing.  \nFINDINGS OF FACT: (1) Hawthorn Farm Athletic Club employed claimant as a personal trainer from September 29, 2016 until November 12, 2017.  \nCase \\# 2018-UI-76964  \nEAB Decision 2018-EAB-0187  \n(2) Shortly before approximately November 8, 2017, claimant accepted a second job as a personal trainer with the employer’s direct competitor. Also before November 8, 2017, the employer’s manager told claimant that she was required to attend staff meetings that claimant thought were not mandatory for other trainers. Claimant became concerned that the employer was discriminating against her.  \n(3) On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, claimant’s manager called claimant to her office. The manager told claimant that she should have informed the manager that she had accepted a second job as a trainer with a health club in direct competition with the employer. The manager also told claimant that some“billing irregularities” by claimant had come to the employer’s attention, that the employer was going to investigate claimant’s billings and that claimant should retrieve her belongings and leave the premises.  \n(4) As claimant was leaving the workplace on November 8, 2017, claimant saw the employer’s general manager and met with the general manager and her manager. The general manager told claimant she was being investigated because one of the employer’s clients had contacted the employer protesting certain charges that claimant had originated, and after reviewing the charges the employer had some questions about them. The general manager told claimant that the employer was going to commence an investigation. The general manager asked claimant not to come to work on Thursd","cbCaimUjXu9IVgX9","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimUjXu9IVgX9","pdf",77986,6,"English","# Procedural History\n## Department notice and ALJ hearing\n## Application for review\n# Issues and Submissions\n## Written argument timing\n## Memory card extension request\n# Findings of Fact\n## Employment dates and second job\n## Manager meeting and investigation notice\n## Confidentiality agreement and statements","[{\"question\":\"What did the Employment Appeals Board decide in 2018-EAB-0187?\",\"answer\":\"The Employment Appeals Board affirmed the disqualification determination for leaving work without good cause.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Board not consider the written argument and memory card?\",\"answer\":\"Both were not accepted as part of the hearing record and the memory card was submitted after the applicable deadline.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the Board require for new information to be considered?\",\"answer\":\"The claimant was required to explain why the additional information could not be presented at the hearing or show circumstances beyond her reasonable control prevented offering it as evidence.\"}]","Employment Appeals Board Decision 2018-EAB-0187 - Disqualification - Affirmed | PDF",1789505983]