Can unemployment claimants receive benefits while traveling abroad? Kendell v. Department of Workforce Services Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in unemployment law: whether foreign travel automatically disqualifies claimants from receiving benefits. In Kendell v. Department of Workforce Services, the court set aside the Workforce Appeals Board’s decision and clarified the proper analysis for determining availability during foreign travel.

Background and Facts

Jeffrey Kendell filed for unemployment benefits and traveled to Europe for six weeks, from July 15 to August 22, 2010. While abroad, he continued filing weekly benefit claims, answering “yes” when asked if he was physically able and available for full-time work. Kendell testified he traveled to Germany to apply for a specific job, though he lacked work authorization there. He also visited Italy and Spain for vacation purposes. Kendell maintained he was available by phone and email and had sufficient airline miles to return within twenty-four hours if needed. However, he failed to notify the Department of Workforce Services about his foreign travel as required.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether Kendell was available for work under Utah Code section 35A-4-403(1)(c) while traveling in foreign countries, and (2) whether the Board properly imposed fraud penalties for his failure to report foreign travel. The Board’s decision rested on its interpretation of administrative rule R994-403-112c, which addressed foreign travel as affecting claimant availability.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals relied heavily on its recent decision in Dorsey v. Department of Workforce Services, which rejected the Board’s interpretation of rule R994-403-112c. The court held that the Board’s interpretation imposed “a disability not mentioned in the statute” and impermissibly restricted the availability requirement. The touchstone for unemployment eligibility remains actual availability, not the location of the claimant. The court found that the presumption of unavailability during foreign travel may be overcome by showing the claimant made arrangements to be contacted and could return quickly enough to respond to work opportunities.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that foreign travel alone does not automatically disqualify unemployment claimants. The Board must conduct a case-by-case analysis of actual availability rather than applying a blanket rule based on geographic location. Practitioners should focus on evidence demonstrating clients’ ability to return quickly for work opportunities when challenging denials based on foreign travel. The decision also reinforces that administrative rules cannot impose restrictions beyond those found in the underlying statute.