Oregon Claimant’s Injury During Unpaid Orientation Session is Compensable
Where a claimant had applied for a position with the purported employer, had been advised by that employer to attend an unpaid “orientation” and a paid training day, had arrived at the purported employer’s office at the appointed day and time, and then sustained a hip fracture when another worker suddenly opened a heavy stairwell door, knocking claimant to the floor, the claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries, held an Oregon appellate court on remand [Randall v. SAIF Corp. (In re Meyers, 307 Ore. App. 6, 2020 Ore. App. LEXIS 1197 (Oct. 7, 2020)]. Having been ordered to reconsider its earlier decision following the state supreme court’s decision in Gadalean v. SAIF, 364 Or 707, 439 P3d 965 (2019), the appellate court distinguished the instant case from Gadalean and stressed that because the claimant had a reasonable expectation that she would be paid for the training session–the employer’s branch manager admitted that had claimant not been injured, she would almost assuredly have been hired–she was a covered “worker” within the meaning of Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.005(3).
Background
Claimant came to the employer’s office with the understanding that she would engage in a brief unpaid orientation involving the completion of paperwork and would then begin a paid training for a position as a telemarketer. She was injured when she was hit by a door in a stairwell of employer’s office and fell while on her way to the unpaid orientation. The board found that claimant had been invited by employer to attend the orientation and the paid training but that her hiring was contingent on her completion of paperwork at the orientation. Although the board found that, “more than likely,” claimant would have been hired after the orientation had she not been injured, the board reasoned that, at the time of her injury, claimant had not yet been hired for remuneration. The board concluded, therefore, that claimant was not a worker at the time of her injury.
The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court remanded, however, in light of its decision in Gadalean.
Gadalean is Distinguishable
The appellate court stressed that the facts in Gadalean were quite different. In Gadalean, the claimant was injured during a pre-employment drive test. The employer had not made an offer of remuneration for the drive test. The Supreme Court held that when an employer does not offer to pay a putative employee for services, the person is not a worker under the workers’ compensation laws. The court held that a “worker,” within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30), is a person who takes on an obligation to provide services with a reasonable expectation of remuneration. The Court held that the claimant in Gadalean had not established a reasonable expectation of remuneration at the time he was injured and, therefore, he could not be awarded benefits.
In the instant case, however, the board found that employer had invited the claimant to come for the orientation and the paid training, which would have taken place immediately after the orientation. Thus, as distinct from Gadalean, at the time claimant arrived for the orientation, she had a reasonable expectation that she would be paid for the training. For that reason, the Supreme Court’s holding in Gadalean did not require the appellate court to change its earlier decision. Because the claimant had been invited to both the orientation and the paid training and had a reasonable expectation when she came to the employer’s office that she would begin a paid training session, claimant was a worker within the meaning of ORS 656.005(30) at the time of her injury.