Jonathon R. Nagl, Petitioner,
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Destination Vail Hotel, Inc., Respondents
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado. DD No. 11866-2014.
Bryan Cave, LLP, Richard L. Nagl, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Petitioner.
No Appearance for Respondents.
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB. Plank[*] and Ney, JJ., concur.
[¶1] In this unemployment compensation case, petitioner, Jonathan R. Nagl (claimant), seeks review of a final order of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) affirming the hearing officer's decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits based on earnings from a previous employer under section 8-73-108(5)(e)(IV), C.R.S. 2014 (quitting to move to another area as a matter of personal preference). He also asserts that the hearing officer's application of that statutory section violated his constitutional right to travel. We affirm, and perceive no violation of claimant's constitutional rights.
[¶2] Claimant worked as a front desk agent for Destination Vail Hotel, Inc. He quit this employment to be located closer to his girlfriend in Telluride, Colorado. Claimant found new employment in Telluride, but he was subsequently laid off from that position.
[¶3] Claimant then sought unemployment insurance benefits. A deputy for the division of unemployment insurance denied claimant's request for benefits based on his employment with Destination Vail Hotel. It is not disputed, however, that claimant received unemployment benefits based on his work for the Telluride employer.
[¶4] Claimant appealed, and following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer affirmed the deputy's decision. The hearing officer found that claimant voluntarily quit his employment with Destination Vail Hotel to be closer to his girlfriend. The hearing officer rejected claimant's arguments that he was entitled to benefits from Destination Vail Hotel because he was not at fault for losing his subsequent job. Consequently, the hearing officer concluded that claimant was at fault for his separation from Destination Vail Hotel and disqualified him from receiving benefits from this employer under section 8-73-108(5)(e)(IV).
[¶5] Claimant appealed the hearing officer's decision to the Panel, which affirmed upon review. The Panel concluded that claimant's separation from the subsequent employer was not relevant to the issue of his separation
from Destination Vail Hotel. The Panel noted that each separation from a base period employer must be individually adjudicated in order to determine a claimant's entitlement to benefits attributable to that employment. Therefore, because claimant did not contest that he left his job with Destination Vail Hotel for personal reasons, the Panel upheld the hearing officer's decision.
[¶6] Claimant now brings this appeal.
II. Standard of Review
[¶7] We may set aside the Panel's decision if the findings of fact do not support the decision or the decision is erroneous as a matter of law. See § 8-74-107(6), C.R.S. 2014; Colo. Div. of Emp't & Training v. Parkview ...