Background
Aurrin Faustin sought review of a final order of the Employment Appeals Board determining that his employer, Serendipity Center, Inc., had discharged him for misconduct and that he was therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Faustin appeared pro se; neither the employer nor the Employment Department appeared on appeal.
The board found, among other things, that Faustin was terminated because of his behavior after receiving feedback about emails he had sent. It also found that he violated the employer’s attendance-notice policy by failing to notify his supervisor of an April 7 absence, despite the written policy and an April 2 instruction that he contact his supervisor about absences.
Faustin challenged the board’s refusal to consider portions of an October 10, 2025, written submission containing material outside the hearing record, disputed several factual findings, and argued that the attendance policy expressed only an expectation—not a requirement—that employees personally notify their supervisors.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported the board’s determination that Faustin had not shown circumstances beyond his reasonable control prevented him from presenting the additional evidence at the hearing. The board therefore properly considered his October 10 submission only to the extent that it relied on the existing hearing record.
The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the board’s challenged factual findings, including its finding that the employer terminated Faustin because of his behavior following feedback about his emails. It further upheld the findings that the employer required employees to notify their supervisors of absences and that Faustin violated that policy by reporting his April 7 absence to a receptionist instead of his supervisor.
The court limited its review to adequately presented claims of error, explaining that even when an appellant proceeds pro se, the court cannot develop the appellant’s arguments or search the record for error. Reviewing the board’s order for substantial evidence, substantial reason, and legal error, the court found no reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- An administrative board may reject extra-record evidence when the offering party fails to show that circumstances beyond the party’s reasonable control prevented its presentation at the hearing.
- Substantial evidence supported the findings that Faustin was discharged for misconduct and failed to comply with the employer’s attendance-notice policy.
- Pro se appellants must identify the rulings challenged, address preservation and the applicable standard of review, and support their arguments with legal authority and record citations.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary and procedural limits governing judicial review of unemployment-benefit determinations. Parties generally cannot use an appeal to supplement the administrative record without satisfying the governing standard for additional evidence.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1). Even so, it underscores that appellate courts may afford pro se litigants limited leniency on technical matters but will not formulate arguments or search the record on their behalf.