We keep a notebook of our unemployment decisions, so you may check our record.

1. Hearing Officer’s Decision Awards Unemployment

Representing the claimant was Brian Stutheit, Attorney at Law. The hearing officer held the hearing because the employer appealed a decision issued by a deputy of the Division of Employment and Training… The hearing officer concludes that the claimant quit because of compelling personal reasons. The claimant was not able to be at home to give his father his scheduled medications after the claimant’s work schedule was changed.

Decision: It is determined that the claimant is not at fault for the separation from this employment. A full award of benefits is granted under Section 8-73-108(4)(v), C.R.S.

2. Hearing Officer’s Decision Denies Unemployment

Brian Stutheit represented the employer. The hearing officer held the hearing because the employer appealed a decision issued by a deputy of the Division of Employment and Training. The deputy granted the claimant a full award of unemployment insurance benefits… The deputy determined the claimant quit this employment because the employer’s payroll checks were not consistently paid and an award of benefits was granted.

Decision: It is determined that the claimant is at fault for the separation from this employment, and a disqualification is issued under Section 8-73-108(5)(e)(XXII). The hearing officer reverses the deputy’s decision.

3. Hearing Officer’s Decision

The claimant and his attorney, Brian Stutheit, appeared by telephone. The claimant appealed the decision issued by a deputy of the Division of Employment and Training. The deputy found, “You were discharged after you violated a company rule.” The claimant worked for this employer as a delivery driver. The employer stated they have a policy that provides for termination after the accumulation of five points. The employer assigns points for infractions. If the claimant had not received the point for not having lunch “en route” he would not have been discharged. At the hearing, the employer had no definition of “en route”. The hearing officer is not persuaded that the assessment of one point to the claimant for allegedly not having lunch “en route” was a violation of employer policy.

The claimant is not at fault for the separation from this employment. A full award of benefits is granted.