Kaib's Roving R.Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Employment Department, 338 Or. 433

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon held that a Court of Appeals decision vacating an Employment Department order and remanding for reconsideration before a different decision-maker was a decision “in favor of” the petitioner under ORS 183.497. The court further held that the discretionary and mandatory attorney-fee provisions in ORS 183.497(1)(a) and (b) establish different standards. Because the department acted without a reasonable basis in law by permitting its director, rather than an administrative law judge, to sign the final order, an award of attorney fees and costs was mandatory.

Holdings

1. A judicial decision may be 'in favor of' a petitioner even when it resolves only procedural matters. The Court of Appeals' order vacating the agency's final order and remanding for reassessment before a different decision-maker qualified as a finding in favor of Kaib's Roving.
2. ORS 183.497(1)(a) authorizes a discretionary award of fees and costs when the court finds in favor of the petitioner, whereas ORS 183.497(1)(b) requires an award when the agency acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law, subject to the statutory exceptions.
3. The Employment Department acted without a reasonable basis in law by failing to recognize under ORS 657.683 and ORS 657.684 that the director was a party to the proceeding, not the ultimate decision-maker, and by permitting the director rather than the ALJ to sign the final order. Because the other statutory criteria were satisfied, an award of fees under ORS 183.497(1)(b) was mandatory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Court of Appeals decision vacating an agency order and remanding for reconsideration before a different decision-maker is a finding 'in favor of' the petitioner under ORS 183.497(1).
2. Whether ORS 183.497(1)(a) and ORS 183.497(1)(b) establish distinct discretionary and mandatory standards for attorney-fee awards.
3. Whether the Employment Department acted without a reasonable basis in law by failing to recognize that its director was a party rather than the decision-maker and by permitting the director to sign the final order.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded