Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/unemployment-insurance/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:44:28+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mesa County Public Library District v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Monday, June 26, 2017.
Unemployment Compensation—Fault or Misconduct—Illness or Physical Disability of Employee.
The supreme court held that where the Division of Unemployment Insurance determines a claimant was mentally unable to perform assigned work under C.R.S. § 8-73-108(4)(j) of the Colorado Employment Security Act, C.R.S. §§ 8-70-101 to 8-82-105, neither the text of C.R.S. § 8-73-108(4)(j) nor related case law contemplates further inquiry into the cause of the claimant’s mental condition, and such an inquiry is beyond the scope of the simplified administrative proceedings to determine the claimant’s eligibility for benefits. Here, the court concluded that the Division’s hearing officer erred in determining that claimant committed a volitional act to cause her mental incapacity and thus was at fault for her separation from employment and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Division of Unemployment Insurance Employer Services/Integrity v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, October 8, 2015.
Employees of a Talent Agency for Unemployment Insurance Tax Purposes.
Marbles Kids, Inc. (Marbles) is a talent agency that represents individuals seeking acting and modeling work, most of whom are children. Marbles provides possible candidates for auditions, and the artists are free to turn down the auditions. The artists have contracts with Marbles stating that Marbles will receive a percentage commission on any assignments booked through them. The clients pay Marbles, and Marbles deducts its commission and pays the artist the remaining amount.
The Division of Unemployment Insurance Employer Services—Integrity/Employer Audits (Division) issued a liability determination that the artists were in covered employment with Marbles and thus Marbles was required to pay unemployment insurance tax premiums on amounts paid to artists. Marbles appealed, and the hearing officer affirmed. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) reversed.
On appeal, the Division argued that the Panel erred in concluding that no employment relationship existed. Under the Colorado Employment Security Act, employment requires a showing that a “service [has been] performed by an individual for another.” Service has been defined as “an act done for the benefit or at the command of another.” The Division argued that the artists performed their acting and modeling services “at the command” of Marbles. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The artists were free to reject auditions or assignments from Marbles’ clients and were not “at the command” of Marbles. The Court also rejected the Division’s argument that the artists performed services “for the benefit of” Marbles. The artists did not provide a benefit for Marbles; rather, Marbles worked for the artists in finding them work with third parties. The artists worked for clients, not for Marbles.
Because the artists did not perform acting or modeling services for Marbles, Marbles was not an employer of the artists and they were not Marbles’ employees. Accordingly, Marbles was not required to pay unemployment insurance tax premiums on the amounts it paid the artists after deducting its agent commissions. The Panel’s order was affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Foundation for Human Enrichment v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office on Thursday, December 19, 2013.
Unemployment Compensation Tax Liability—Out-of-State Workers—Colorado Employment Security Act.
In this unemployment compensation tax liability case, petitioner Foundation for Human Enrichment (Foundation) sought review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel). The issue on appeal was whether coordinator services carried out by twenty-one individuals, who lived and worked out of state and performed various administrative and clerical duties for Foundation workshops, constituted covered “employment” for tax purposes under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), CRS §§ 8-70-101 to 8-82-105. The Panel concluded that the out-of-state coordinators were covered employees under the CESA and that the Foundation was responsible for paying unemployment compensation taxes for these individuals.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Panel. The out-of-state coordinators’ services to the Foundation were not “employment” under the CESA. CRS § 8-70-117 applies only when the worker performs all his or her services in Colorado, performs a portion of his or services in Colorado, or resides in Colorado. None of those circumstances was present here. The coordinators lived in eleven states and provided all their services in those states. Based on the definition of “employment” enacted in each state, the coordinators’ services would have been covered under the unemployment compensation laws of the state where they worked and resided. Therefore, the Division of Unemployment Insurance lacked statutory authority to impose tax liability against the Foundation with regard to the out-of-state coordinators. The order was set aside and the case was remanded with directions.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Industrial Claim Appeals Office v. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment on Monday, July 1, 2013.
Respondent worked for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (Department) for a number of years, and then retired. The Department made contributions to respondent’s retirement fund, and once she retired, she began receiving retirement payments from that fund. When she was involuntarily separated from her job with the Department during a second period of employment, she applied for and was awarded unemployment benefits. Respondent’s benefits were discontinued when a panel of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) reasoned that respondent was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits under the “offset provision” of CRS § 8-73-110(3)(a)(I)(B), which provides that “an individual’s weekly benefit amount shall be reduced (but not below zero) by . . . [t]he prorated weekly amount of a pension, retirement or retired pay, or annuity that has been contributed to by a base period employer.” The court of appeals reversed, holding that the offset provision applies only when the employer has contributed to the claimant’s retirement fund during the base period employment that made him or her eligible for unemployment benefits.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. The offset provision applies when a claimant is receiving payments from a retirement fund “that has been contributed to by a base period employer.” In contrast to the definition of employer, which specifically includes a time frame during which the employing unit must pay wages, and in contrast to the definition of base period, which describes the time frame for determining eligibility for benefits, the offset provision contains no temporal limitation. Therefore, it applies any time the employer has contributed to the retirement fund from which the claimant is receiving payments, regardless of when the contributions were made. Accordingly, the Court held that respondent’s unemployment benefits can be offset by the retirement benefits she is receiving from a base period employer.
On April 11, 2013, Rep. Dominick Moreno and Sen. Lucia Guzman introduced HB 13-1304 – Concerning Eligibility for Unemployment Compensation Benefits when Unemployment is Due to a Lockout. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report and the legislative Fiscal Notes.
This bill allows an employee who is subject to an employer-initiated lockout to receive unemployment benefits. It also removes the existing definitions of an offensive lockout, defensive lockout, and multiemployer bargaining unit.
Labor-management disputes rarely escalate to the level of an employer locking out employees. Since 1996, Colorado workers have not experienced a lockout by any employer. If no lockouts are experienced in any given year, there will be no impact on the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Trust Fund.
This bill was amended upon Second Reading in the House, but passed Third Reading unamended and was introduced in the Senate on April 22. It was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was not amended and was referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole for Second Reading.

References: v. 
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 § 8