Can you quit your job to go hunting and still collect unemployment benefits? Wright v. Workforce Appeals Board Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an employee who quits his job to go hunting can collect unemployment benefits in Wright v. Workforce Appeals Board. The court’s decision provides important guidance on the good cause and equity and good conscience standards in unemployment compensation cases.

Wright requested time off to go hunting between August 14-24, 2009. After returning from his ten-day hunt, he called his employer several times between August 24-27, claiming no work was available each time. However, his employer provided contradictory evidence showing they had called Wright multiple times during that period offering work, left messages, but Wright never returned the calls or contacted the employer. The administrative law judge found the employer more credible and concluded Wright had voluntarily quit his job.

Wright argued he should qualify for benefits under two theories. First, he claimed good cause for quitting because continuing employment would have caused hardship. However, the court noted Wright failed to demonstrate any actual hardship from returning to work on August 24, as he wasn’t asked to perform illegal or unsuitable work and could have continued the same type of work he had been performing.

Second, Wright argued that denying benefits would violate equity and good conscience. The court explained this standard requires showing the decision to quit was logical, sensible, or practical, with evidence of circumstances that would motivate a reasonable person to take similar action. The Workforce Appeals Board found that quitting a job before securing other employment is rarely practical, and Wright’s failure to respond to his employer’s messages upon returning from vacation was unreasonable.

The court affirmed the denial of benefits, emphasizing that appellate courts defer to the Board’s credibility assessments and uphold decisions that fall within the realm of reasonableness and rationality. This case demonstrates that personal activities, even short vacations, cannot justify abandoning employment responsibilities without facing consequences for unemployment eligibility.