Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah unemployment claimants receive benefits while traveling abroad? Levier v. Department of Workforce Services Explained
Summary
Helena Levier traveled to Brazil for two weeks to handle estate matters and filed for Utah unemployment benefits while there. The Workforce Appeals Board denied her benefits and imposed penalties for fraud, concluding she was unavailable for work due to foreign travel. The Court of Appeals set aside the Board’s decision and directed reconsideration under the proper legal standard established in Dorsey.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether unemployment claimants can receive benefits while traveling abroad in Levier v. Department of Workforce Services. This case provides important guidance on overcoming the presumption of unavailability during foreign travel.
Background and Facts
Helena Levier traveled to Brazil for two weeks to sign a power of attorney for her parents’ estate settlement. While there, she filed for Utah unemployment benefits. Levier testified she could have returned within thirty-six hours if necessary, presenting evidence of a standby airline pass through her pilot son. She continued applying for Utah jobs and provided potential employers with her email address. The Workforce Appeals Board denied her benefits and imposed fraud penalties, concluding her foreign travel rendered her unavailable for work regardless of her ability to return quickly.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether the Board correctly interpreted the rules governing availability under Utah Administrative Code R994-403-112c(2)(a). The central question was whether a claimant presumed unavailable due to foreign travel could overcome that presumption by demonstrating ability to return quickly for work opportunities.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied its recent decision in Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services, holding that claimants can overcome the presumption of unavailability during foreign travel “by showing that the claimant made arrangements to be contacted and could return quickly enough to respond to any opportunity for work.” The court found the Board’s interpretation inconsistent with governing statutes and based on flawed assumptions rather than factual determinations about Levier’s actual availability.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that physical location alone does not disqualify unemployment claimants. Practitioners should focus evidence on the claimant’s practical ability to return for work opportunities, including communication arrangements and travel logistics. The dissenting judge noted that Levier was “every bit as available” as the claimant in Dorsey despite being farther away, emphasizing that practical availability matters more than geographic distance.
Case Details
Case Name
Levier v. Department of Workforce Services
Citation
2013 UT App 74
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110816-CA
Date Decided
March 21, 2013
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The Workforce Appeals Board must apply the correct legal standard from Dorsey when determining whether a claimant traveling abroad can overcome the presumption of unavailability for unemployment benefits.
Standard of Review
Not specified in the opinion
Practice Tip
When challenging unemployment benefit denials based on foreign travel, emphasize evidence of the claimant’s ability to return quickly and maintain contact with potential employers, rather than focusing solely on the reason for travel.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.