Unemployment Insurance

Web Library Topic - Job Performance

Unable to Perform the Work

Failure to Meet Established Job Performance Standards

Careless or Shoddy Work

Failure to Safeguard the Employer’s Property or Interests

Unable to Perform the Work

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(4)(j), C.R.S. 2005

(4) An individual separated from a job shall be given a full award of benefits if any of the following reasons and pertinent conditions related thereto are determined by the division to have existed. The determination of whether or not the separation from employment shall result in a full award of benefits shall be the responsibility of the division. The following reasons shall be considered, along with any other factors that may be pertinent to such determination:

(j) Being physically or mentally unable to perform the work or unqualified to perform the work as a result of insufficient educational attainment or inadequate occupational or professional skills. In cases where an individual quits because of physical or mental inability to perform the work because of domestic abuse, any award of benefits will be made in accordance with paragraph (r) of this subsection (4).

Cases

Colorado State Judicial Dept. v. Industrial Commission, 630 P.2d 102 (Colo. App. 1981)

"Physical inability to work has been defined as the inability to perform the labor, or equally remunerative work, that an injured person was engaged in at the time of his injury."  Here, a claimant who could not get out of bed some days, or could not remain sitting or standing for extended periods of time was physically unable to work.

Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Industrial Commission, 637 P.2d 401 (Colo. App. 1981)

Illness that is not necessarily disabling, and absences resulting from such illness, can constitute a physical inability to perform the work.

Electronic Fab Technology Corp. v. Wood, 749 P.2d 470 (Colo. App. 1987)

When the employer was aware that the claimant was experiencing health problems due to the workload, the evidence supported an award of benefits to the claimant who was mentally and physically unable to perform the work.  Also, the claimant can be awarded unemployment benefits if the claimant is either mentally or physically unable to perform the work, or if the claimant is unqualified for the job because of insufficient skills; there is no requirement that both must be shown.

Failure to Meet Established Job Performance Standards

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XX), C.R.S. 2005

(5)(e) Subject to the maximum reduction consistent with federal law, and insofar as consistent with interstate agreements, if a separation from employment occurs for any of the following reasons, the employer from whom such separation occurred shall not be charged for benefits which are attributable to such employment and, because any payment of benefits which are attributable to such employment out of the fund as defined in section 8-70-103 (13) shall be deemed to have an adverse effect on such employer's account in such fund, no payment of such benefits shall be made from such fund:

(XX) For other reasons including, but not limited to, excessive tardiness or absenteeism, sleeping or loafing on the job, or failure to meet established job performance or other defined standards, unless such failure is attributable to factors listed in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of this section.

Cases

Pabst v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 833 P.2d 64 (Colo. App. 1992)

A warning that the claimant's job is in jeopardy is not necessary; all that is required for a disqualification under § 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XX) is that the claimant did not do the job for which he or she was hired, and was aware of what was expected.

Board of Water Commissioners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 881 P.2d 476 (Colo. App. 1994)

Although the claimant was not found to have violated a rule that resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employer's interests under § 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(VII), the claimant failed to meet established job performance standards under § 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XX) when he was aware that a drug test was required by the employer to maintain his employment, yet willfully used cocaine prior to the test. 

Richards v. Winter Park Recreational Association, 919 P.2d 933 (Colo. App. 1996)

Willful intent is not required to support a disqualification under the statute.  Rather, all that is required is that the claimant did not do the job for which he or she had been hired, and knew what what was expected.

Careless or Shoddy Work

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XV), C.R.S. 2005

(5)(e) Subject to the maximum reduction consistent with federal law, and insofar as consistent with interstate agreements, if a separation from employment occurs for any of the following reasons, the employer from whom such separation occurred shall not be charged for benefits which are attributable to such employment and, because any payment of benefits which are attributable to such employment out of the fund as defined in section 8-70-103 (13) shall be deemed to have an adverse effect on such employer's account in such fund, no payment of such benefits shall be made from such fund:

(XV) Careless or shoddy work. In determining whether or not work has been performed in a careless or shoddy manner, the division shall consider the length of time the worker has been performing the work satisfactorily and industry standards for such work. No work shall be considered careless or shoddy that comes within the area of reasonable mistakes and errors normally made by workers engaging in the same or similar work.

Cases

The ICAO is unaware of any published Colorado court cases that specifically address this statute.

Failure to Safeguard the Employer's Property or Interests

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XVI), C.R.S. 2005

(5)(e) Subject to the maximum reduction consistent with federal law, and insofar as consistent with interstate agreements, if a separation from employment occurs for any of the following reasons, the employer from whom such separation occurred shall not be charged for benefits which are attributable to such employment and, because any payment of benefits which are attributable to such employment out of the fund as defined in section 8-70-103 (13) shall be deemed to have an adverse effect on such employer's account in such fund, no payment of such benefits shall be made from such fund:

(XVI) Failure to properly safeguard, maintain, or account for the employer's property when this obligation is an essential part of the job.

Case

Short v. Steves Holiday Liquors, 727 P.2d 415 (Colo. App. 1986)

A claimant who falsified a daily cash register total to hide an overage was not disqualified under § 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(VII), as the difference was only $15.00, and there was no evidence that such an amount resulted in serious damage to the employer.  However, the claimant failed to properly account for the employer's property, which was part of his job, and so was disqualified under § 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XVI).

Back to Top  |  Library Index  |  ICAO Home Page  |  CDLE Home Page