Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
SILVERTON FOREST PRODUCTS CO., Petitioner
vs.
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION and MELVIN D. ARRANT, Respondents
 
Case:
CA No. A41937
 
Location:
Court of Appeals of Oregon
 
Date:
June 15, 1987, Argued and submitted
August 5, 1987, Filed
 
Attorneys:
Galen L. Bland Portland argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Christine L. Chute Assistant Counsel General Salem argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer Counsel General and Virginia L. Linder Solicitor General Salem.
No appearance for respondent Melvin D. Arrant.
 
Court:
Richardson, Presiding Judge and Newman and Deits, Judges.
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Richardson
 

Claimant was fired after he tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines in a drug test required by employer. Employer seeks review of EAB's decision that he was eligible for unemployment benefits because the misconduct resulting in the discharge was not connected with claimant's work. ORS 657.176(2)(a). This case differs from Glide Lumber Prod. Co. v. Emp. Div. (Smith) 86 Or App 669 741 P2d 907 (1987) in one respect: The substances claimant used here were cocaine and amphetamines rather than marijuana.

As we discussed in Smith the test could reveal systemic evidence of marijuana for approximately 30 days after its use but the impairing effects of that drug have a maximum duration of 12 hours. The drugs which this claimant used are detectable by testing for only three days after they are taken; impairment from cocaine use can last up to eight hours and amphetamines may produce impairing effects which last for a somewhat longer period. The evidence did not show when claimant took the drugs and there was no evidence that he was either under their influence while at work or performing unsatisfactorily because of his drug use. His discharge was based solely on the positive test results. We conclude for the same reasons that we did in Glide Lumber Prod. Co. v. Emp. Div. (Smith) supra that the allowance of benefits was correct.

Affirmed.