Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah workers receive unemployment benefits while on voluntary COVID-19 leave? Bingham v. Department of Workforce Services Explained
Summary
Marie Bingham, a 79-year-old part-time sales employee, was furloughed due to COVID-19 but later declined to return to work until she received the COVID-19 vaccine, mutually agreeing with her employer to take a leave of absence. The Department of Workforce Services denied her unemployment benefits for the period she was unavailable to work due to her unvaccinated status and required her to repay $8,608 in benefits she received during that time.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a significant question about unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bingham v. Department of Workforce Services. The case involved a 79-year-old part-time retail employee who declined to return to work until she could be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Background and facts
Marie Bingham worked as a part-time sales lead until March 2020, when COVID-19 forced her employer to close and furlough her. She successfully claimed unemployment benefits during this initial period. When her employer reopened in August 2020, Bingham returned to work briefly but was soon furloughed again due to lack of customers. In January and February 2021, when her employer offered her shifts, Bingham declined because she had not yet been vaccinated. She testified that she and her supervisor mutually agreed it would be too dangerous for someone her age to work unvaccinated. Her employer placed her on a non-medical personal leave of absence until she could be fully vaccinated, which occurred in June 2021.
Key legal issues
The central issue was whether Bingham was able and available for work under Utah Code section 35A-4-403(1)(c) during the period she declined to work while unvaccinated. The Department also sought to recover $8,608 in benefits paid during this period, raising questions about claimant fault for overpayments.
Court’s analysis and holding
The court affirmed the Department’s denial of benefits, emphasizing that unemployment compensation is designed for those “generally available in the labor market” but for whom no suitable employment is available. The court found Bingham’s own testimony established that she participated in the mutual decision not to work until vaccinated. Under Utah Administrative Code R994-403-111c(3)(a), individuals are not eligible for benefits when they cannot work due to a temporary condition and the employer agrees to allow them to return when able. The court also upheld the fault determination for the overpayment, finding that Bingham had sufficient knowledge, materiality, and control elements were established.
Practice implications
This decision clarifies that even health-motivated decisions to avoid work during a pandemic do not automatically qualify for unemployment benefits. The court rejected arguments that the “equity and good conscience” standard should apply, particularly given that Bingham had previously worked during the pandemic before vaccines were available. Practitioners should carefully document whether work refusals are truly employer-mandated versus mutually agreed upon, as claimant participation in such decisions can establish ineligibility under the able and available standard.
Case Details
Case Name
Bingham v. Department of Workforce Services
Citation
2022 UT App 110
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20210763-CA
Date Decided
September 9, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An employee who mutually agrees with her employer to take a leave of absence until fully vaccinated against COVID-19 is not able and available for work and therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits during the leave period.
Standard of Review
Statutory interpretation and application reviewed for correctness; Board’s ultimate decision to grant or deny benefits entitled to deference as fact-intensive mixed question of law and fact; agency’s interpretation of its own rules reviewed for reasonableness and rationality; factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence; constitutional issues reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When representing unemployment benefit claimants, carefully document whether any work refusal was truly employer-initiated versus mutually agreed upon, as claimant participation in the decision can establish ineligibility under the able and available standard.
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.