24CA1326 Ahmadi v ICAO 02-06-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA1326 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 12233-2024
Hadi Ahmadi,
Petitioner,
v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Swissport USA Inc.,
Respondents.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division IV Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Harris and Yun, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced February 6, 2025
Hadi Ahmadi, Pro se
No Appearance for Respondents ¶1 In this unemployment benefits case, Hadi Ahmadi seeks
review of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) order affirming
a hearing officer’s decision disqualifying him from receiving
unemployment benefits after his job separation from Swissport
USA. We affirm the Panel’s order.
I. Background
¶2 Swissport employed Ahmadi as a warehouse worker near
Denver International Airport for approximately three months.
Swissport discharged Ahmadi because he yelled at his supervisor
on the warehouse floor and then became angry when a manager
called the airport police to assist with the situation. Ahmadi
continued to argue with the manager, who told him to surrender his
work badge and leave the property. Ahmadi eventually left after the
police arrived. Swissport suspended Ahmadi’s employment pending
a human resources investigation, and then terminated his
employment on March 25, 2024.
¶3 Ahmadi applied for unemployment benefits, but a deputy for
the Division of Unemployment Insurance determined that under
section 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. 2024, he was disqualified because
his job separation was due to the violation of a company rule that
1 could have resulted in serious damage to the employer’s property or
interests. Ahmadi appealed the deputy’s decision. After an
evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer affirmed the deputy’s
decision — on different grounds — as a disqualification under
section 8-73-108(5)(e)(XIV) (rude, insolent, or offensive behavior not
reasonably to be countenanced by a customer, supervisor, or fellow
worker). The Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s determination.
II. Analysis
¶4 Ahmadi, proceeding pro se, urges us to set aside the Panel’s
order because (1) his termination was “revenge” for filing a workers’
compensation claim; (2) “their” lawyer allegedly made an offer of
settlement of $5,000; (3) none of the witnesses who worked his shift
were willing to testify, and the witnesses who did testify were from
“another shift who came to work that day”; and (4) he asked for
camera footage of the incident but it was not provided and then was
deleted. We reject these contentions and affirm the Panel order.
A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
¶5 We will uphold the Panel’s decision unless the findings of fact
do not support the decision or the decision is erroneous as a matter
of law. § 8-74-107(6)(c)-(d), C.R.S. 2024; see Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr.
2 Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78, ¶ 17. Whether a
worker is entitled to benefits depends on the reason for
unemployment. See Debalco Enters., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals
Off., 32 P.3d 621, 623 (Colo. App. 2001). Workers can receive
unemployment benefits only if unemployed through no fault of their
own. Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist., ¶ 18. Determining whether a
claimant is at fault for the employment separation requires a case-
specific consideration of the totality of the circumstances, Morris v.
City & Cnty. of Denver, 843 P.2d 76, 79 (Colo. App. 1992), using an
objective standard, Davis v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 903 P.2d
1243, 1245 (Colo. App. 1995).
¶6 An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits if the separation from employment occurred based on the
“[r]udeness, insolence, or offensive behavior of the worker not
reasonably to be countenanced by a customer, supervisor, or fellow
worker.” § 8-73-108(5)(e)(XIV). In determining whether this
subsection applies, we consider “whether a reasonable person in
the position of the fellow worker and others would have found [the]
claimant’s action to be so rude, insolent, or offensive as not to be
countenanced.” Davis, 903 P.2d at 1245.
3 B. Proceedings Below
¶7 At the hearing, Ahmadi provided extensive testimony with the
assistance of interpreters. He alleged that he was “not shouting,”
but admitted he “raised his voice” a few times because his back
hurt. He also testified that he was not close to the manager and
was not “threatening.” He admitted he became increasingly angry
when informed that police had been called, because of his concern
about putting his green card status in jeopardy. And he admitted
that he told the manager they were “not fit to be a manager.”
¶8 Swissport did not present witnesses at the hearing, but
provided written statements signed by employees who witnessed the
incident on the warehouse floor. The record also contained a
“corrective action form,” dated March 25, 2024, detailing the
incident. That form, signed by Swissport’s general manager,
indicated that Ahmadi violated company policy by “getting into a
verbal altercation with a manager and supervisor on the evening of
March 20,” and then refusing “to leave when asked, and the police
had to be called.”
4 C. Discussion
¶9 Regarding Ahmadi’s first and second arguments on appeal, we
are unable to discern from the record whether Ahmadi made a
workers’ compensation claim and, if so, whether there was some
offer of settlement as he alleges. We determine, however, that
whether or not there was such a claim or offer is not relevant to
Ahmadi’s unemployment benefits claim. See Sch. Dist. No. 1 v.
Fredrickson, 812 P.2d 723, 724 (Colo. App. 1991) (A “hearing officer
is not bound by determinations of any other agency, administrative
body, or forum which is not required to make its decision under the
Employment Security Act.”).
¶ 10 Further, during his testimony, Ahmadi generally contended
that he had back pain that prevented him from lifting heavy items.
But when asked by the hearing officer whether he was fired because
of a medical condition, he responded, “No. They say that I was loud
and I shouted. No.” His own testimony thus weighs against his
argument that a medical condition was the true reason for his
discharge.
¶ 11 We also reject Ahmadi’s third and fourth arguments on appeal.
As best we can tell, Ahmadi asserts that the “witnesses” who
5 provided written statements concerning the March 20 incident were
not the regular workers on his shift. However, it does not appear
that the hearing officer explicitly considered those statements as a
basis for his decision. Instead, the hearing officer relied on
Ahmadi’s own testimony acknowledging that he was “very angry”
and had “raised his voice” with management.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24CA1326 Ahmadi v ICAO 02-06-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA1326 Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado DD No. 12233-2024
Hadi Ahmadi,
Petitioner,
v.
Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and Swissport USA Inc.,
Respondents.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division IV Opinion by JUDGE KUHN Harris and Yun, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced February 6, 2025
Hadi Ahmadi, Pro se
No Appearance for Respondents ¶1 In this unemployment benefits case, Hadi Ahmadi seeks
review of the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (Panel) order affirming
a hearing officer’s decision disqualifying him from receiving
unemployment benefits after his job separation from Swissport
USA. We affirm the Panel’s order.
I. Background
¶2 Swissport employed Ahmadi as a warehouse worker near
Denver International Airport for approximately three months.
Swissport discharged Ahmadi because he yelled at his supervisor
on the warehouse floor and then became angry when a manager
called the airport police to assist with the situation. Ahmadi
continued to argue with the manager, who told him to surrender his
work badge and leave the property. Ahmadi eventually left after the
police arrived. Swissport suspended Ahmadi’s employment pending
a human resources investigation, and then terminated his
employment on March 25, 2024.
¶3 Ahmadi applied for unemployment benefits, but a deputy for
the Division of Unemployment Insurance determined that under
section 8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. 2024, he was disqualified because
his job separation was due to the violation of a company rule that
1 could have resulted in serious damage to the employer’s property or
interests. Ahmadi appealed the deputy’s decision. After an
evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer affirmed the deputy’s
decision — on different grounds — as a disqualification under
section 8-73-108(5)(e)(XIV) (rude, insolent, or offensive behavior not
reasonably to be countenanced by a customer, supervisor, or fellow
worker). The Panel affirmed the hearing officer’s determination.
II. Analysis
¶4 Ahmadi, proceeding pro se, urges us to set aside the Panel’s
order because (1) his termination was “revenge” for filing a workers’
compensation claim; (2) “their” lawyer allegedly made an offer of
settlement of $5,000; (3) none of the witnesses who worked his shift
were willing to testify, and the witnesses who did testify were from
“another shift who came to work that day”; and (4) he asked for
camera footage of the incident but it was not provided and then was
deleted. We reject these contentions and affirm the Panel order.
A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review
¶5 We will uphold the Panel’s decision unless the findings of fact
do not support the decision or the decision is erroneous as a matter
of law. § 8-74-107(6)(c)-(d), C.R.S. 2024; see Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr.
2 Dist. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 2017 CO 78, ¶ 17. Whether a
worker is entitled to benefits depends on the reason for
unemployment. See Debalco Enters., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals
Off., 32 P.3d 621, 623 (Colo. App. 2001). Workers can receive
unemployment benefits only if unemployed through no fault of their
own. Mesa Cnty. Pub. Libr. Dist., ¶ 18. Determining whether a
claimant is at fault for the employment separation requires a case-
specific consideration of the totality of the circumstances, Morris v.
City & Cnty. of Denver, 843 P.2d 76, 79 (Colo. App. 1992), using an
objective standard, Davis v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 903 P.2d
1243, 1245 (Colo. App. 1995).
¶6 An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits if the separation from employment occurred based on the
“[r]udeness, insolence, or offensive behavior of the worker not
reasonably to be countenanced by a customer, supervisor, or fellow
worker.” § 8-73-108(5)(e)(XIV). In determining whether this
subsection applies, we consider “whether a reasonable person in
the position of the fellow worker and others would have found [the]
claimant’s action to be so rude, insolent, or offensive as not to be
countenanced.” Davis, 903 P.2d at 1245.
3 B. Proceedings Below
¶7 At the hearing, Ahmadi provided extensive testimony with the
assistance of interpreters. He alleged that he was “not shouting,”
but admitted he “raised his voice” a few times because his back
hurt. He also testified that he was not close to the manager and
was not “threatening.” He admitted he became increasingly angry
when informed that police had been called, because of his concern
about putting his green card status in jeopardy. And he admitted
that he told the manager they were “not fit to be a manager.”
¶8 Swissport did not present witnesses at the hearing, but
provided written statements signed by employees who witnessed the
incident on the warehouse floor. The record also contained a
“corrective action form,” dated March 25, 2024, detailing the
incident. That form, signed by Swissport’s general manager,
indicated that Ahmadi violated company policy by “getting into a
verbal altercation with a manager and supervisor on the evening of
March 20,” and then refusing “to leave when asked, and the police
had to be called.”
4 C. Discussion
¶9 Regarding Ahmadi’s first and second arguments on appeal, we
are unable to discern from the record whether Ahmadi made a
workers’ compensation claim and, if so, whether there was some
offer of settlement as he alleges. We determine, however, that
whether or not there was such a claim or offer is not relevant to
Ahmadi’s unemployment benefits claim. See Sch. Dist. No. 1 v.
Fredrickson, 812 P.2d 723, 724 (Colo. App. 1991) (A “hearing officer
is not bound by determinations of any other agency, administrative
body, or forum which is not required to make its decision under the
Employment Security Act.”).
¶ 10 Further, during his testimony, Ahmadi generally contended
that he had back pain that prevented him from lifting heavy items.
But when asked by the hearing officer whether he was fired because
of a medical condition, he responded, “No. They say that I was loud
and I shouted. No.” His own testimony thus weighs against his
argument that a medical condition was the true reason for his
discharge.
¶ 11 We also reject Ahmadi’s third and fourth arguments on appeal.
As best we can tell, Ahmadi asserts that the “witnesses” who
5 provided written statements concerning the March 20 incident were
not the regular workers on his shift. However, it does not appear
that the hearing officer explicitly considered those statements as a
basis for his decision. Instead, the hearing officer relied on
Ahmadi’s own testimony acknowledging that he was “very angry”
and had “raised his voice” with management.
¶ 12 Additionally, the Panel noted, and Ahmadi does not dispute,
that before the hearing, he never asked the Division of
Unemployment Insurance to issue administrative subpoenas to
compel these individuals to attend the hearing. See Dep’t of Labor
& Emp. Reg. 11.2.19, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1101-2 (describing
procedures for obtaining administrative subpoenas). Given the
absence of any request for administrative subpoenas, Ahmadi has
not explained the legal basis by which the hearing officer should
have “compelled” these individuals to appear and testify.
¶ 13 Finally, during the hearing, Ahmadi told the hearing officer he
had requested the submission of any recordings from any cameras
at the warehouse. But when asked by the hearing officer whether
“these cameras have sound,” he responded, “I do not know. I only
noticed that the warehouse had cameras. I don’t know if they
6 record sound or not.” The hearing officer then asked, “Okay. If it’s
not known whether they record sound and you’re saying you were
fired for raising your voice, how will these camera footage videos
show me anything?” Ahmadi opined that the footage would show
how far he was from the manager when the incident occurred. The
hearing officer allowed him to testify regarding the estimated
distance of ten to fifteen meters. We conclude that the hearing
officer did not incorrectly deny a continuance because any camera
footage, even if available, would be cumulative and thus irrelevant.
See C.R.E. 403.
¶ 14 We are also satisfied that Ahmadi’s conduct, described as
yelling, refusing to leave, and becoming very angry when told the
airport police had been contacted, was objectively, rude, insolent, or
offensive such that a reasonable supervisor or fellow worker would
not countenance it. See Olsgard v. Indus. Comm’n, 548 P.2d 910,
910-11 (Colo. 1976) (affirming disqualification from benefits to
worker for rude and offensive conduct after he told an owner, in the
presence of other employees, that he would “puke” in the owner’s
face). Here, Ahmadi testified that he told a manager they did not
know how to be a manager. While Ahmadi explained that his anger
7 toward the manager stemmed from his concern about a green card
being jeopardized, and his earlier frustration with being asked to lift
things with back pain, the hearing officer found that he had control
over his conduct when reacting to that concern. See Richards v.
Winter Park Recreational Ass’n, 919 P.2d 933, 934 (Colo. App. 1996)
(For purposes of the unemployment statutes, fault includes “a
volitional act or the exercise of some control or choice in the
circumstances leading to the discharge from employment such that
the claimant can be said to be responsible for the termination.”).
The totality of the record supports this finding.
¶ 15 In sum, after reviewing the record evidence and applying our
applicable standard of review, we cannot disturb the determination
that Ahmadi was at fault for his job termination and therefore
disqualified from benefits under section 8-73-108(5)(e)(XIV).
III. Disposition
¶ 16 The Panel’s order is affirmed.
JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE YUN concur.