Unemployment Insurance

Web Library Topic - Volitional Act / Fault

Statutes

§ 8‑73-108(1)(a), C.R.S. 2005

In the granting of benefit awards, it is the intent of the general assembly that the division at all times be guided by the principle that unemployment insurance is for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own; and that each eligible individual who is unemployed through no fault of his own shall be entitled to receive a full award of benefits; and that every person has the right to leave any job for any reason, but that the circumstances of his separation shall be considered in determining the amount of benefits he may receive, and that certain acts of individuals are the direct and proximate cause of their unemployment, and such acts may result in such individuals receiving a disqualification.

§ 8‑73‑108(4), C.R.S. 2005

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: (Emphasis added.)

Cases

Zelingers v. Industrial Commission, 679 P.2d 608 (Colo. App. 1984)

A claimant who was terminated for missing work did not act volitionally to cause her separation when she was given at least tacit permission to miss work and was not told her job would be in jeopardy if she was absent.

Gonzales v. Industrial Commission, 740 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1987)

Whether a claimant was discharged according to the employer's disciplinary guidelines is a separate issue from whether the claimant's conduct was disqualifying.  That assessment requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances which caused the separation, including whether the claimant acted volitionally in the circumstances that caused the separation.

City and County of Denver v. Industrial Commission, 756 P.2d 373 (Colo. 1988)

Once the employer establishes a prima facie case for disqualification, it is the claimant’s burden to establish that his or her conduct was not volitional.

Collins v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 813 P.2d 804 (Colo. App. 1991)

To be at fault for the separation, the claimant need only have acted volitionally, or exercised control in the circumstances that led to the separation.

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

A warning is not a prerequisite to an individual’s ability to engage in volitional conduct. All that is necessary is the claimant knew what was expected and failed to comply.

Keil v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 847 P.2d 235 (Colo. App. 1993)

The employer's failure to follow its established disciplinary procedures prior to terminating a claimant is a factor to be considered, but is not dispositive of whether the claimant acted volitionally in the circumstances that caused the discharge. 

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

The concept of "fault" does not require culpability or an intentional act, but does requires volitional conduct on the part of the claimant.  The claimant acts volitionally if he or she exercises some control or choice in the circumstances leading to the separation such that the claimant can be said to be responsible for the separation.

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