In a case decided on June 20, 2014,
Dorsey v. DWS, 2014 UT 22, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) had “erroneously interpreted” a statutory provision to ban seasonal employees who receive work-search deferrals from leaving the country. As in many cases as discussed in an
earlier post, the unemployment claimant was a seasonal employee who had been guaranteed to return to work by his employer. Pursuant to regulation, he was told that he need not search for work so long as he was ready, able, and willing to return to work. During the time that he was on a deferral, he took several trips to Mexico, although he was close to the United States, had his cell phone with him, and contacted his employer. The DWS had penalized the employee for being unable to return to work as it interpreted any travel outside of the United States as creating an inability to work. The Supreme Court ruled that a per se ban was inconsistent with the statutory language and therefore overturned the penalty imposed. While the opinion reverses the DWS’s action in this case, it notes that the Utah legislature has recently adopted
an amendment to the statute that codifies the DWS’s interpretation of the rule.
In a case decided on June 20, 2014, Dorsey v. DWS, 2014 UT 22, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Department of Workforce Services (DWS) had “erroneously interpreted” a statutory provision to ban seasonal employees who receive work-search deferrals from leaving the country. As in many cases as discussed in an earlier post, the unemployment claimant was a seasonal employee who had been guaranteed to return to work by his employer. Pursuant to regulation, he was told that he need not search for work so long as he was ready, able, and willing to return to work. During the time that he was on a deferral, he took several trips to Mexico, although he was close to the United States, had his cell phone with him, and contacted his employer. The DWS had penalized the employee for being unable to return to work as it interpreted any travel outside of the United States as creating an inability to work. The Supreme Court ruled that a per se ban was inconsistent with the statutory language and therefore overturned the penalty imposed. While the opinion reverses the DWS’s action in this case, it notes that the Utah legislature has recently adopted an amendment to the statute that codifies the DWS’s interpretation of the rule.