The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld a decision that denies Aurrin Faustin unemployment benefits after he was discharged from his job for misconduct. This ruling, issued on October 28, 2026, impacts Faustin, who represented himself in court, and emphasizes the importance of adhering to workplace policies. The court found that substantial evidence supported the Employment Appeals Board's (EAB) conclusion regarding Faustin's termination.

Faustin's case began when he appealed a final order from the EAB, which determined that he was discharged for misconduct related to his job at Serendipity Center, Inc. As a result of this misconduct, Faustin was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The EAB's decision was based on evidence presented during a hearing, which Faustin challenged in his appeal.

The parties involved in this case include Aurrin Faustin, the petitioner, and the Employment Department and Serendipity Center, Inc., as respondents. Faustin filed his appeal pro se, meaning he represented himself without an attorney. The Employment Department waived its appearance, while Serendipity Center did not appear in court at all. The case was submitted for consideration on October 6, 2026, and was decided by Judges Ortega, Joyce, and O’Connor.

The primary dispute arose from the EAB's determination that Faustin had been discharged for misconduct. The board found that Faustin violated the company's attendance policy by failing to notify his supervisor about his absence on April 7, despite being informed of this requirement previously. Faustin argued that the board made errors in its findings and that it did not consider all of his written arguments submitted after the hearing.

The court ruled that the EAB's decision was supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason. Judge Joyce wrote, "We are unpersuaded that the board committed reversible error." The court emphasized that it limited its review to claims of error that were properly presented in Faustin's opening brief. It noted that Faustin had the responsibility to identify specific rulings he was challenging and to provide a coherent argument supported by legal authority.

In its ruling, the court addressed Faustin's claims regarding the EAB's refusal to consider additional evidence he submitted after the hearing. The board had declined to consider this evidence as it was not part of the hearing record and Faustin did not demonstrate that he was prevented from presenting it during the hearing. The court agreed with the board's assessment, stating that the findings were supported by the evidence in the record.

Furthermore, the court examined Faustin's argument that the board's findings regarding his violation of the attendance policy were incorrect. The board had established that employees were required to personally notify their supervisors of absences. Faustin had failed to do so, instead calling the receptionist. The court found that the board's conclusion was also supported by substantial evidence.

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking unemployment benefits in Oregon. It underscores the necessity of complying with workplace policies and the potential consequences of misconduct. The court's affirmation of the EAB's decision reinforces the idea that employers have the right to enforce attendance policies and that employees must adhere to them to qualify for unemployment benefits.

The ruling does not set a new legal precedent, as it is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion. However, it serves as a reminder for employees about the importance of understanding and following workplace rules, especially when it comes to reporting absences. The court's decision highlights the challenges faced by individuals representing themselves in legal matters, particularly in navigating the complexities of the appeals process.

Looking ahead, Faustin may have limited options for further appeal due to the nature of the court's ruling. Since this case is a nonprecedential opinion, it cannot be cited as a legal precedent in future cases. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or potential further appeals by Faustin.