Hallam v. ICAO
25CA0316
Colo. Ct. App.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Diana Hallam was employed as an IT technician at Lower Valley Hospital Association and was terminated for violating company policy on unacceptable conduct.
- Her conduct included being loud and rude with front desk staff, which she later admitted and apologized for via email.
- Hallam had a prior record of disciplinary warnings about her interactions with coworkers, including being advised to maintain professional communications.
- Hallam applied for unemployment benefits; initially approved, the employer appealed and a hearing was held.
- The hearing officer found Hallam engaged in rude conduct disqualifying her from benefits under state law; this was affirmed by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) and the court now reviews that decision.
Issues
| Issue | Hallam's Argument | Lower Valley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hallam disqualified from unemployment benefits for rude conduct? | Her behavior was not rude enough for disqualification; witnesses were biased; apology shouldn't be used against her. | Her conduct was repeatedly rude and violated clear policy, warranting disqualification. | Hallam was properly disqualified for benefits due to her conduct. |
| Was Hallam fired for protected activity? | She claims her termination was for engaging in protected activity. | No nexus between protected activity and termination presented. | Protected activity argument was rejected; not relevant to benefits eligibility. |
| Should her apology mitigate the consequences? | Apology should not be used against her in determining fault. | Admission and apology are evidence she knew the behavior was unacceptable. | Apology shows awareness of misconduct; supports disqualification. |
| Is the credibility assessment by the hearing officer reviewable? | Witnesses were biased; court should not rely on their testimony. | Hearing officer is best positioned to judge credibility. | No basis to disturb hearing officer’s credibility findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78 (standard for reviewing agency findings on unemployment benefits)
- Morris v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 843 P.2d 76 (Colo. App. 1992) (totality of circumstances test for claimant fault)
- Richards v. Winter Park Recreational Ass’n, 919 P.2d 933 (Colo. App. 1996) (definition of "fault" in unemployment benefits context)
- Davis v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 903 P.2d 1243 (Colo. App. 1995) (standard for measuring rudeness and offensiveness)
- Tilley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo. App. 1996) (role of hearing officer in credibility determination)
- Goodwill Indus. of Colo. Springs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 862 P.2d 1042 (Colo. App. 1993) (consideration of disciplinary history in reviewing eligibility)
- Pabst v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 833 P.2d 64 (Colo. App. 1992) (knowing violation of policy is relevant for benefit disqualification)
- Alfaro v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 78 P.3d 1147 (Colo. App. 2003) (appellate review limited to the record)