Brito-Chavez v. ICAO
24CA0924
Colo. Ct. App.Sep 5, 2024Background
- Antonio Brito-Chavez worked as a dump truck driver for Mountain States Asphalt Paving, Inc. for about six months.
- Brito-Chavez had repeated tardiness issues, a no-call/no-show incident, and an argument with his supervisor that ended with him walking off the job after threatening a fight.
- He initially received unemployment benefits, but Mountain States contested this and a hearing was scheduled.
- Brito-Chavez did not attend the hearing, citing a family emergency but failed to provide details when requested by the Panel.
- The hearing officer, relying on employer testimony, found Brito-Chavez quit due to dissatisfaction with supervision and reversed the benefit award; the Panel affirmed this decision.
- Brito-Chavez appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, raising additional arguments regarding truck safety, familial obligations, and supervisor conduct, as well as submitting new documentation not previously provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to unemployment after quitting | Did not quit; left due to unsafe truck and family issues | Quit after no-call/no-show and a heated altercation; supervision was reasonable | Disqualified from benefits; resignation deemed voluntary |
| Consideration of new evidence | Submitted new documents/arguments on appeal | Only evidence presented at hearing should be considered | New evidence not reviewable; only record evidence counted |
| Good cause for nonappearance at hearing | Family emergency (aunt's surgery) prevented attendance | No sufficient detail or timely communication provided | No good cause shown for missing hearing |
| Nature of supervision as cause for quitting | Supervisor treated him unprofessionally | Supervision was within professional norms given repeated tardiness | Supervision was objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cole v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 964 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1998) (unemployment benefits are for those unemployed through no fault of their own)
- Eckart v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 775 P.2d 97 (Colo. App. 1989) (the trier of fact determines the reason for employment separation)
- Richards v. Winter Park Recreational Ass'n, 919 P.2d 933 (Colo. App. 1996) (fault in unemployment context requires volitional choice in resignation)
- Starr v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 224 P.3d 1056 (Colo. App. 2009) (volition defined as exercising control over circumstances leading to job separation)
- Hoskins v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2014 COA 47 (Credibility determinations are for the hearing officer and will not be disturbed on appeal)