Bingham v. Department of Workforce Services
Bingham v. Department of Workforce Services, 2022 UT App 110 (Orme, J.)
An Appeals Board (Board) and later an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Bingham was eligible for unemployment insurance during the Covid-19 pandemic, but not after she and her employer decided that it would be okay for her not to return to work out of caution because she was not yet vaccinated. The Board determined that she should repay $8,608. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision, holding:
- Bingham was in fact unavailable to work even though she answered that she was available to work on her unemployment form, and the Board did not exceed its discretion in determining that Bingham was responsible for the overpayment.
- The Board did not violate Bingham’s due process rights when it failed to hold an in-person hearing, as Bingham expressed, for example, that she was struggling to understand the information more than to hear it; in considering allegedly inadmissible evidence, because it did not rely on the evidence in coming to its decision; and in not considering Bingham’s untimely memorandum after it was returned in the mail and did not arrive on time. Here, Bingham’s opportunity to be heard remained intact.