Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services
2014 UT 22
| Utah | 2014Background
- John Dorsey, a seasonal Park City restaurant server, received unemployment benefits during off-season periods and was deferred from the work-search requirement because he had an employer attachment and a recall date.
- Dorsey made multiple month-long trips to Baja California, Mexico, while filing weekly claims and affirming he was "able and available for full-time work," and could return within 24 hours if needed.
- The Department of Workforce Services investigated after Dorsey disclosed he was in Mexico and determined he was ineligible for benefits for those weeks under an administrative rule barring benefits for claimants out of the U.S. for more than two weeks.
- An ALJ and the Workforce Appeals Board upheld the Department’s determination; the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Department’s interpretation conflicted with the statute.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals, holding the Department’s per se ban (as applied to claimants not required to search for work) is incompatible with the statutory "able and available" requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dept.'s rule barring benefits for claimants outside the U.S. >2 weeks applies to claimants deferred from work-search (seasonal workers) | Dorsey: the two-week rule applies only to claimants required to seek work; it should not apply to deferred claimants whose eligibility turns on being "able and available." | Dept.: the rule is a per se bar to eligibility for any claimant outside the U.S. >2 weeks, no exceptions. | The per se international-travel ban cannot be applied to claimants not required to search for work; eligibility depends on factual "able and available" inquiry. |
| Whether a per se ban on international travel is compatible with the statute’s "able and available" requirement | Dorsey: statutory "available" focuses on capability/accessibility, so presence abroad does not automatically negate availability. | Dept.: administrative rule implements availability requirement and furthers statutory purpose. | Court: statutory text controls; "available for work" means capable/accessible—so a blanket >2-week ban is incompatible with the statute as applied to deferred claimants. |
| Whether the statute’s preamble or policy goals can justify reading the statute to allow the travel ban | Dorsey: N/A (relied on statutory text). | Dept.: policy goals (maintain purchasing power, limit social harms) support rule. | Court: cannot override clear statutory text by invoking preamble or policy; legislature must change statute if desired. |
| Whether a subsequent statutory amendment endorsing travel limitations affects this dispute | Dorsey: amendment is not retroactive and does not govern these claims. | Dept.: amendment supports the travel restriction. | Court: amendment is prospective; it does not control interpretation of the statute as it existed when the events occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders Brine Shrimp v. Audit Div. of Utah State Tax Comm’n, 846 P.2d 1304 (Utah 1993) (administrative rules must be consistent with governing statutes)
- Rocky Mountain Energy v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 852 P.2d 284 (Utah 1993) (rules subordinate to statutes and cannot create greater disabilities than statute)
- State v. Canton, 308 P.3d 517 (Utah 2013) (courts may credit legislative use of specialized legal terms of art)
- South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 522 U.S. 329 (1998) (caution against inferring earlier legislative intent from a subsequent change)
- State v. Clark, 251 P.3d 829 (Utah 2011) (apply law as it exists at time of the regulated event)
- In re Beatty, 210 S.E.2d 193 (N.C. 1974) (availability for work depends on case-specific facts)