A nurse who avoided COVID-19 vaccination on religious grounds but refused to sign her employer’s exemption form was properly denied unemployment benefits after the company placed her on unpaid leave, Colorado’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday.

Although the purpose of unemployment benefits is to compensate workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, there are conditions under which an employee is ineligible. Workers are disqualified when, among other things, they deliberately disobey a “reasonable instruction of an employer.”

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals found Jessica Simon was not entitled to payment after she rejected the process her employer, Bayada Home Health Care, had implemented for seeking religious exemptions to vaccination.

“Bayada had the right to require that its registered nurses either get the COVID-19 vaccine or, if the employee’s religious beliefs precluded vaccination, complete and sign an exemption form. This instruction was reasonable,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov in the panel’s Aug. 10 opinion. “Yet Simon refused to comply.”

Case: Simon v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Decided: August 10, 2023

Jurisdiction: Industrial Claim Appeals Office

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov (author)

Elizabeth L. Harris

Timothy J. Schutz

Background: Colorado appeals court agrees woman fired for vaccine non-compliance not entitled to unemployment benefits

In February, a separate panel held that a health care worker who did not seek an exemption at all was barred from unemployment benefits, as her employer’s policy was aimed at protecting its workers and clients from COVID-19. In Simon’s case, by contrast, she took issue with the terms of her company’s religious exemption form.

Responding to state regulations, Bayada required its employees to get vaccinated or obtain a religious or medical exemption in 2021. Bayada put Simon on unpaid leave when she returned the form unsigned. She sought unemployment benefits, but a hearing officer decided Simon was responsible for her situation because she disobeyed a reasonable instruction.

Simon, representing herself, turned to the Court of Appeals. She claimed the form had “illegal provisions” that would reduce her hours and assignments. Such reductions allegedly amounted to religious discrimination. Further, Bayada allowed clients to request that only vaccinated workers provide care, which would “segregate employees based on vaccination status.”

The appellate panel saw no evidence that signing the form would have resulted in a reduction of Simon’s work hours, and testimony suggested religiously exempt employees were working without issue. As for whether Bayada discriminated against Simon based on her religion, the panel observed that Bayada was permitted to draw distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated employees.

“Bayada did not disclose to clients which of its employees had signed a religious exemption form in lieu of getting vaccinated,” Lipinsky wrote. “The record does not show that Bayada’s decision not to assign an unvaccinated employee to a particular client necessarily conveyed the message that such employee had not been vaccinated.”

Because Simon had not shown Bayada treated her differently due to religion, and Simon bore responsibility for disobeying a reasonable directive, she was disqualified from receiving benefits.

The case is Simon v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office et al.