Colorado Unemployment and Fault: Guidance for Former Employees and Employers

Colorado unemployment cases often turn on one key question: was the separation through no fault of the worker? That issue matters to former employees seeking benefits and to employers responding to a claim, especially when the dispute involves reduced hours, job performance, or other underemployment concerns.

At Greschler Unemployment Law Representation, we help both former employees and employers navigate Colorado unemployment appeals, hearings, and benefit disputes. Whether you need an unemployment appeal lawyer after a denial or an unemployment hearing lawyer to prepare for a hearing, the central issue is how Colorado law evaluates fault.

How Colorado Defines Fault

Colorado’s unemployment law asks whether the worker was unemployed through no fault of their own, but it also recognizes that a claimant may be disqualified when the separation was caused by the claimant’s conduct. In underemployment matters, that often turns on whether the worker failed to meet established job performance standards under § 8-73-108(5)(e)(XX).

For former employees, the key question is often whether they understood the employer’s expectations and whether the facts really show a failure to perform the job. For employers, the focus is usually on proving that expectations were clear, that the employee knew what was required, and that the employee did not meet those standards.

What the Cases Show

Colorado courts have explained that intent is not always required. In Board of Water Commissioners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, the court held that a claimant could fail to meet job performance standards even without a separate finding of serious misconduct, where the claimant knowingly used cocaine before a required drug test.

In Pabst v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, the court held that an employer does not have to warn a worker that the job is in jeopardy for disqualification to apply. It is enough that the claimant did not do the job they were hired to do and knew what was expected.

In Richards v. Winter Park Recreational Association, the court again emphasized that willful intent is not required. The issue is whether the claimant failed to perform the job as expected while knowing the expectations.

For Former Employees

If you are appealing a denial of benefits, your goal is to show that the employer has not proven fault under Colorado law. That may mean showing that expectations were unclear, that the alleged performance problem was misunderstood,  a supervisor’s instruction/permission or ongoing acceptance of the violation made it unclear this was an enforced expectation.

For Employers

Employers should be prepared to explain the standards that applied, how those standards were communicated, and how the employee failed to meet them. In a Colorado unemployment appeal, clear records of communications often matter more than labels.

If a former employee’s hours were reduced or the separation involved performance concerns, the employer should be ready to show the facts supporting that decision. Working with an unemployment attorney can help ensure the record matches the legal standard and is presented effectively at hearing.

Why Representation Matters

These cases are often decided on the details. A claimant may believe the issue was a mistake or a misunderstanding, while the employer may believe the employee failed to meet known expectations. That is why experienced representation can be important on either side of the case.

At Greschler Unemployment Law Representation, we help former employees and employers present the facts, apply the law, and prepare for hearings and appeals. If you are facing a Colorado unemployment dispute, understanding fault under § 8-73-108(5)(e)(XX) is often the first step toward a fair result.