Mesa County Public Library District v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
2016 COA 96
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Laurie Gomez worked ~25 years for Mesa County Public Library, as public services manager; performance problems arose after a new director was hired in 2013.
- Gomez was placed on multiple performance-improvement plans (PIPs) for deficient management and for an unsatisfactory organizational capacity report described as a "data dump."
- She was required to present a revised report on October 7, 2014; she called in sick that day, had further breakdowns, and thereafter submitted a doctor’s note diagnosing acute stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
- While on medical leave, Gomez forwarded some materials but did not produce a satisfactory report; the director terminated her effective October 20, 2014 for failing to prepare/present the report.
- A hearing officer found Gomez was mentally unable to perform her duties but concluded she was "at fault" because her prior poor performance caused the mental illness, disqualifying her from unemployment benefits under §8-73-108(5)(e)(XX).
- The Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) reversed and awarded benefits under §8-73-108(4)(j); the court of appeals affirmed the Panel, holding that an inquiry into the root cause of a nonvolitional incapacity is too attenuated to deny benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Gomez's Argument | Library's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gomez was disqualified from benefits for failing to meet established job performance standards | Gomez argued she was mentally unable to perform the work (nonvolitional) and thus entitled to benefits under §8-73-108(4)(j) | Library argued termination was for failure to meet performance standards and the mental illness was caused by Gomez’s own prior poor performance, so she was "at fault" under §8-73-108(5)(e)(XX) | Court held Gomez was entitled to benefits; nonvolitional inability to perform the job under (4)(j) precludes labeling the claimant "at fault" for the separation |
| Whether the Panel improperly substituted its factual findings for the hearing officer’s | Gomez/Panel accepted and relied on the hearing officer’s factual findings that she was unable to complete the report and was terminated for that failure | Library contended the Panel reweighed evidence and changed factual findings | Court held the Panel properly deferred to and adopted the hearing officer’s evidentiary findings supported by the record |
| Whether the causation of the incapacity (i.e., that prior poor performance triggered the mental disorder) may be considered to deny benefits | Gomez argued the statute does not permit a probing inquiry into the origins of a mental/physical incapacity once incapacity is found | Library argued causation is relevant and fault can be assigned if claimant’s volitional conduct caused the incapacity | Court held the statute’s (4)(j) benefit for incapacity does not permit a further inquiry into antecedent causes; cause-of-condition is too attenuated to deny benefits |
| Whether allowing benefits here will improperly encourage feigned incapacity claims | Gomez argued the adjudicative process and requirement to prove incapacity guard against abuse | Library argued it opens the door to illegitimate claims where poor performance produced stress | Court held this concern insufficient to justify denying benefits; adjudicators must find a serious, nonvolitional incapacity supported by evidence before awarding benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Colo. Div. of Emp’t & Training v. Hewlett, 777 P.2d 704 (Colo. 1989) (Act designed to help those involuntarily unemployed; statutes construed liberally)
- City & Cty. of Denver v. Indus. Comm’n, 756 P.2d 373 (Colo. 1988) (unemployment benefits depend on reason for separation; fault not necessarily related to culpability)
- Cole v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 964 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1998) ("fault" requires volitional act or exercise of control leading to separation)
- Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Denver v. Colo. Div. of Emp’t & Training, 754 P.2d 1382 (Colo. App. 1988) (claimant physically unable to report absence awarded benefits even though incapacity was caused by substance use)
- Indus. Comm’n v. Moffat Cty. Sch. Dist. RE No. 1, 732 P.2d 616 (Colo. 1987) (employee dismissed for drinking with students might still be eligible if unable to perform due to inadequate professional skills)
- Tague v. Coors Porcelain Co., 490 P.2d 96 (Colo. App. 1971) (mental breakdowns do not automatically entitle employee to benefits; must show inability to work)