Peavey v. ICAO
24CA1963
Colo. Ct. App.May 29, 2025Background
- Linda Peavey was human resources director for Summit County from January 2023 to May 2024.
- Peavey implemented a paid leave (PPFML) policy in January 2024 without formal approval from the county board (BOCC).
- Although BOCC briefly approved the policy, it was repealed shortly after; Peavey then canceled approved leave and notified affected employees, against her supervisor's directions.
- Peavey was terminated for insubordination, specifically for failing to follow direct instructions regarding communication with employees about the policy.
- Her claim for unemployment benefits was denied on the grounds of insubordination under Colorado law, and this was upheld after administrative hearings, prompting her appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Peavey's Argument | County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for unemployment after alleged insubordination | She followed orders and emails were not rude | She deliberately disobeyed direct instructions | Peavey’s action was insubordination, so she was disqualified |
| Due process at hearing | Hearing was unfair; she wasn't given full equal opportunity | Had fair chance to present case | She was afforded proper process and a fair opportunity |
| Attorney error as grounds for appeal | Attorney’s omissions affected outcome | Ineffective assistance not grounds in civil/unemployment cases | Attorney error not a valid basis for appeal here |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting denial | Decision not supported by record | Ample evidence of insubordination | Substantial evidence supported the findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Debalco Enters., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 32 P.3d 621 (Colo. App. 2001) (eligibility for unemployment depends on separation through no fault of employee)
- Morris v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 843 P.2d 76 (Colo. App. 1992) (totality of circumstances considered for claimant fault)
- Rose Med. Ctr. Hosp. Ass’n v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 757 P.2d 1173 (Colo. App. 1988) (objective reasonableness standard for employee instructions)
- Starr v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 224 P.3d 1056 (Colo. App. 2009) (volitional acts support finding of insubordination)
- Tilley v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 924 P.2d 1173 (Colo. App. 1996) (hearing officer not required to address all evidence/testimony)
- Wafford v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 907 P.2d 741 (Colo. App. 1995) (fundamental fairness in unemployment hearings; opportunity to present case)