Colorado Unemployment: What "Fault" Really Means

Colorado unemployment law is built on a simple promise: when a worker loses a job through no fault of their own, they should receive a full award of unemployment benefits. But “fault” has a very specific meaning in this context, and it matters to both former employees and employers.

The basic rule: full benefits if no fault

Colorado’s Employment Security Act says unemployment insurance is for people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Ifa former employee is eligible and the job loss was not the former employee’s fault  in the specific legal sense, the former employee should receive unemployment benefits.

This does not mean every firing or quitting automatically involves fault or that if someone quits, they do not get benefits or is fired that they do get benefits.  The key question is whether the former employees  own actions were the direct cause of unemployment, whether what the former employee chose to do is what truly led to that person being out of work.

“Fault” is about choice, not blame

In unemployment law, “fault” does not mean being a bad person, being reckless, or trying to get fired. Instead, Colorado focuses on volitional conduct—did the former employee exercise control or make a meaningful choice given the circumstances in the events that caused the separation from employment.

A former employee can be found at fault even if that person did not intend to lose their job. If that employee knowingly makes a choice that leads to a discharge or resignation, and that choice is a substantial factor in why they are no longer employed, the law may treat the former employee as at fault for unemployment purposes.

What counts as “volitional” conduct?

“Volitional” conduct simply means something a person did (or did not do) by choice, rather than something that happened to that person with no meaningfull choice or control. By Colorado statute, this means that a former employee will potentailly be awarded benefits if the working conditions were unsafe, objectively unsatisfactory, health required the separation, they moved to accompany their working spouse, addiction caused the separation, domestic violence played a role and several other situations in which the circumstances impacted the former employees ability to make a knowing and free choice.  Absent a specific statute, if a former employee had options and understood the likely consequences, then their conduct is usually considered volitional.

Examples of volitional conduct can include:

• Ignoring known attendance rules after they have been clearly explained.

• Refusing to follow clear employer procedures that are understood and enforced.

• Choosing not to perform essential duties after expectations have been made clear.

In each of these situations, the focus is: did the former employee understand what was expected, and chose not to comply without a circumstance that substantailly impacted their choice and control.

Totality of the circumstances: more than company policy

Decision‑makers must look at the totality of the circumstances, including:

• What actually happened leading up to the separation.

• What the worker knew about expectations and consequences.

• What realistic choices the worker had at the time.

  
  

This broader view means that even if a policy was correctly applied, the worker can still be considered unemployed through no fault of their own if their conduct was not truly voluntary in context or if other forces beyond their control were the real cause of the job loss. For example, attendance violations due to illness.

What this means for former employees

If a former employee lost their job because of layoffs, lack of work, restructuring, or other reasons beyond their control, they are often considered unemployed through no fault of their own. In those situations, the former employee  should generally be entitled to a  award of benefits from that employer

If a former employees entitlement to benefits are questioned, they may find it helpful to focus on:

• What they actually knew about the employer’s expectations.

• What choices they realistically had in the situation.

• Why the actions were not the true, voluntary cause of the job loss.

  
  

Explaining these details clearly can help show a former employee was not “at fault” under Colorado’s legal standard, even if discharged.

What this means for employers

For employers, unemployment disputes are not decided solely by the label on the termination form. The critical issue is whether the employee’s voluntary conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the separation under Colorado law.

Helpful practices include:

• Clearly communicating job expectations (in writing and in practice).

• Documenting that the employee understood those expectations.

• Recording what choices the employee made that led to the separation.

  
  

By focusing on control, choice, and the total circumstances—not just internal HR terminology—employers can present a more accurate and legally relevant picture in any unemployment hearing or appeal.

With over 20 years of  Unemployment Lawyer experience, including 16 years of experience serving as a Hearing Officer and Senior Hearing Officer  at the Colorado Department of Labor, and a practice limited to only Colorado Unemployment related matters, Greschler Unemployment Law Representation offers a perspective and expertise that no other Colorado Unemployment Lawyers can match.