Steinhauer v. Department of Workforce Services

1. The Honorable Russell W. Bench, Senior Judge, sat by special
assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud.
Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 121
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
YARON STEINHAUER,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,
Respondent.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20140184-CA
Filed May 30, 2014
Original Proceeding in this Court
Yaron Steinhauer, Petitioner Pro Se
Suzan Pixton, Attorney for Respondent
Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, JOHN A. PEARCE, and
SENIOR JUDGE RUSSELL W. BENCH.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Yaron Steinhauer seeks review of the Workforce Appeals
Board’s (the Board) decision denying him unemployment benefits
for the period from October 20, 2013, through November 23, 2013.
¶2 In Carbon County v. Workforce Appeals Board, 2013 UT 41, 308
P.3d 477, the Utah Supreme Court stated the standard of review to
be used in reviewing the Board’s decision on a request for
unemployment benefits. See id. ¶ 7. Such a determination is
reviewed as a mixed question of fact and law that is more fact-like
because “the case does not lend itself to consistent resolution by a

Steinhauer v. Department of Workforce Services
20140184-CA 2 2014 UT App 121
uniform body of appellate precedent.” Id. (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the Board’s determinations
are entitled to deference because “the appellate court would be in
an inferior position to review the correctness of the . . . decision.”
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Because of the
fact-intensive conclusions involved at the agency level,” the
Board’s determination that Steinhauer was ineligible for benefits
because he was not available for suitable work is entitled to
deference. See id.
¶3 Steinhauer worked for both Park City Mountain Resort
(PCMR) and Wal-Mart. He worked full-time at PCMR as a ski
instructor in the winter and as a lift operator in the summer. He
also worked part-time at Wal-Mart as a bicycle assembler,
averaging fifteen to eighteen hours of work per week. On October
10, 2013, he was laid off by PCMR, with the expectation that he
would return to work in November 2013 for the ski season.
Steinhauer also made a request to Wal-Mart that he not be
scheduled to work from October 21 through November 23, 2013,
because he wanted to get ready for the ski season. Steinhauer’s
supervisor at Wal-Mart granted the request. Wal-Mart had work
available during this time and Steinhauer could have worked his
regular hours if he had chosen to do so.
¶4 The Department of Workforce Services denied
unemployment benefits for the period from October 20 through
November 16, 2013, because Steinhauer did not accept available
work. Following the hearing on Steinhauer’s appeal of the
Department’s decision, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued
a decision affirming the departmental decision and extending the
date for the denial to November 23, 2013. The Board affirmed that
decision, and Steinhauer seeks judicial review.
¶5 In order to qualify for unemployment benefits, a claimant
must be available to accept work. Although a seasonal employee
who anticipates returning to his or her job may be granted a
deferral of the work search requirement for benefits, which

Steinhauer v. Department of Workforce Services
20140184-CA 3 2014 UT App 121
Steinhauer was granted, that deferral did not exempt him from the
requirement to accept available work. See Utah Admin. Code
R994-403-108 (“A claimant placed in a deferred status is not
required to actively seek work but must meet all other availability
requirements of the act . . . .”). If Steinhauer had not chosen to
request time off, he could have continued to work his regular hours
at Wal-Mart during the weeks in question. Instead, he elected not
to accept the available work and was therefore not available for
work and not eligible to receive benefits. It is not relevant that
Steinhauer had received benefits in previous years under factual
situations that were not before the Board.
¶6 Steinhauer argued at the hearing before the ALJ, on appeal
to the Board, and in this court, that even if he had worked his usual
hours at Wal-Mart during the weeks in question he would have
earned less than his weekly benefit amount and should be eligible
for a partial unemployment payment. The Board correctly
concluded that Utah law does not allow any payment of benefits if
a claimant fails to perform available work. See Utah Code Ann.
§ 35A-4-405 (LexisNexis Supp. 2013) (stating that an individual is
ineligible for benefits if he or she fails “to accept suitable work
offered by an employer”). Therefore, the Board did not err in
denying any benefits for the weeks in question.
¶7 Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.