Background
Alyse Holloway worked for the Colorado Department of Corrections until her employment ended in June 2025. She applied for unemployment benefits, but a deputy for the Division of Unemployment Insurance denied the claim, finding she was disqualified because she had taken an “unauthorized vacation or leave” under section 8-73-108(5)(e)(XVII), C.R.S. 2026. The written determination was dated July 24, 2025, listed Holloway’s mailing address, explained her appeal rights, and set an appeal deadline of August 13, 2025, twenty calendar days after mailing.
Holloway did not appeal until April 14, 2026, when she filed online. She said the deputy was wrong because she had sought leave through Colorado’s FAMLI program, that FAMLI had failed to place her leave “in the system,” and that the problem was not corrected until December 2025. A hearing officer summarily dismissed the appeal because it was filed more than 180 days after the deadline, citing Regulation 12.1.3.2, which provides that an appeal more than 180 days late cannot be excused for good cause, must be dismissed without a hearing, and leaves the deputy’s decision final.
Holloway timely appealed to the Industrial Claim Appeals Office Panel, again explaining that she had waited for FAMLI to fix her claim. The Panel affirmed. It inferred that Holloway received timely notice of the determination and was physically and mentally able to file a timely appeal, while also accepting that she missed the deadline because she was focused on resolving the FAMLI issue. The Panel concluded that, even if the delay was unintentional and unfortunate, an appeal filed more than 180 days late may not be excused and found no due process violation.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It first emphasized the narrow scope of review: because the only issue presented to and decided by the Panel was whether the hearing officer correctly applied the governing regulations in summarily dismissing the appeal, the court did not reach Holloway’s underlying argument that she had not taken unauthorized leave. The court also reiterated that it may set aside a Panel decision only on the limited grounds in section 8-74-107(6), C.R.S. 2026, including legal error or findings unsupported by the record.
On the timeliness issue, the court explained that a claimant must appeal a deputy’s determination within twenty calendar days after notification, and that the end of that period starts a 180-day grace period during which a late appeal may still be considered, subject to a rebuttable presumption of good cause. Holloway filed 244 days late. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Panel’s inference that she received timely notice: the determination was dated July 24, 2025, bore her mailing address, gave the August 13 deadline, and she did not deny receiving it.
The court also upheld the Panel’s capability finding. Although the record supported Holloway’s serious medical and mental-health difficulties in May 2025, she acknowledged that by July 2025 she could contact FAMLI and the Division about correcting her leave. The court found no explanation for why she could not also follow the determination’s instructions to appeal. Even accepting her assertion that a Division representative told her to wait for FAMLI’s resolution, that issue was resolved in December 2025, yet she waited until April 14, 2026, after the 180-day period expired around February 9, 2026. At that point, dismissal was mandatory under Regulation 12.1.3.2. The court acknowledged the outcome was harsh but held the Panel and hearing officer were required to apply the regulation’s plain language.
Key Takeaways
- The court affirmed only the summary dismissal of the administrative appeal as untimely; it did not review the merits of whether Holloway actually took unauthorized leave.
- An unemployment appeal filed more than 180 days after the statutory deadline is subject to mandatory dismissal under Regulation 12.1.3.2, with no good-cause exception.
- Substantial evidence supported the Panel’s findings that Holloway received timely notice and was capable of filing within the deadline.
- The decision distinguishes legal review of the regulation’s application from deference to agency factfinding supported by the record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores how strictly Colorado’s unemployment appeal deadlines are enforced. Even sympathetic circumstances, including serious health events and confusion caused by a separate FAMLI problem, cannot revive an appeal filed more than 180 days late.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder to preserve the timeliness issue from the outset and to separate it from the merits. Once the 180-day outer limit passes, the agency lacks authority to consider good cause, and appellate review will focus on whether the dismissal followed the regulation and was supported by the record, not on whether the underlying denial of benefits was correct.