Unemployment Insurance

Web Library Topic - Behavior

Theft

Assault

Willful Neglect or Damage

Rude or Insolent Behavior

Theft

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XI), 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:

(XI) Theft.

Case

Jefferson County v. Kiser, 876 P.2d 122 (Colo. App. 1994)

For purposes of this statute, "theft" is the wrongful taking of the property of another.  Therefore, the disqualification from unemployment benefits applies to a claimant who is discharged for theft, even if the theft was not from the employer.  In this case, the disqualification applied to a sheriff's deputy who was discharged for shoplifting while off duty. 

Assault

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XII), 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:

(XII) Assaulting or threatening to assault under circumstances such as to cause a reasonably emotionally stable person to become concerned as to his physical safety.

Cases

Escamilla v. Industrial Commission, 670 P.2d 815 (Colo. App. 1983)

A claimant who only acted in self defense to a physical attack, and did nothing in retaliation, was not at fault for causing his separation from employment, and thus was entitled to unemployment benefits.

Baca v. Marriott Hotels, Inc., 732 P.2d 1252 (Colo. App. 1986)

"Assaulting" in the statute means harmful or offensive contact similar to common law battery, and "threatening to assault" means apprehension of physical assault or offensive contact similar to common law assault.  In regards to battery, where harmful or offensive contact has taken place, it is the mental state of the actor, not the victim, that is determinative as to whether battery has been committed, and thus the victim's mental state need not be determined.

 

Willful Neglect or Damage

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XIII), 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:

(XIII) Willful neglect or damage to an employer's property or interests.

Case

Sayers v. American Janitorial Service, 162 Colo. 292, 425 P.2d 693 (1967)

Willful misconduct does not necessarily require actual intent to wrong the employer; it is enough if there is a conscious indifference to the perpetration of a wrong or a reckless disregard of the claimant's duty to his or her employer.

Rude or Insolent Behavior

Statute

§ 8‑73‑108(5)(e)(XIV), 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:

(XIV) Rudeness, insolence, or offensive behavior of the worker not reasonably to be countenanced by a customer, supervisor, or fellow worker.

Case

Davis v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 903 P.2d 1243 (Colo. App. 1995)

Whether behavior is so rude, insolent or offensive that it should be disqualifying is to be determined using an objective standard.  Therefore, it must be determined whether a reasonable person would find the behavior such that it should not have been countenanced.

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