Picture
Here is this week's installment of summaries of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were issued on May 27, 2014.  Please note that Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. is not affiliated in any way with 
Unemployment Insurance Minnesota.

1. Douglas A. Peterson, Relator, vs. U.S. Federal Employees, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1354.

Summary: This certiorari appeal is from the decision of an unemployment-law judge that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment-compensation benefits because he was discharged from his employment for committing employment misconduct.  The misconduct in this case was not renewing a commercial driver's license ("CDL") when it was required by the applicant's job and the employer had warned the applicant to renew the CDL.  Affirmed.

2. Kathy Clark, Relator, vs. House of Charity, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1452.

Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer.  The employer had been served with a garnishment summons and complaint, and refused Relator's request to delay garnishing her wages.  Affirmed.

3. Robin Berry, Relator, vs. City of Minneapolis Public Housing, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.  Court File No. A13-1454.

Summary: Relator Robin Berry challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) she quit her employment due to good reason caused by the employer and (2) she had a serious illness or injury that made quitting medically necessary.  Affirmed.

4. Jeremy Thomsen, Relator, vs. Metes & Bounds Management Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1874.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision dismissing relator’s request for reconsideration as untimely, relator argues that we should consider his claims on the merits because he was unable to timely file his request for reconsideration due to problems accessing the Internet. Affirmed.


5.  Julie A. Bennett, Relator, vs. Castle Kitchen Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.  Court File No. A13-1671.


Summary: Relator contests the unemployment-law judge’s decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the unemployment-law judge properly concluded that Bennett was not actively seeking suitable employment during the period in question, we affirm.


If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefiits, your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to discuss your options.  To that end, I represent both applicants and employers in unemployment appeals.  Please call (763) 450-9494 today to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  Also, Tim is licensed only in state and federal courts in Minnesota.  As such, any information provided in this blog post pertains only to those jurisdictions.  Further, you should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 450-9494 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation. 


 
 
Picture
Here is a summary of recent decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court on unemployment benefits.  This week, the Court of Appeals issued three unpublished decisions on unemployment benefits, and reversed the decision of the unemployment law judge in one of those decisions,  The Minnesota Supreme Court, whose decisions for this week have not yet been issued, did not decide any cases involving unemployment benefits last week:


Minnesota Court of Appeals:

1. Tamara Nelson, Relator v. Donnelly Development, LLC and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1288.  Filed May 19, 2014.

Summary and Outcome: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that, despite various problems and negative interactions with the new owner of the apartment building that she managed, she did not commit employment misconduct. We affirm. 

2. Alan Sargent, Relator, vs. Manny Moe & Jack of California, Inc. and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1669.  Filed May 19, 2014.

Summary and Outcome:

Relator Alan Sargent challenges an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct. Sargent argues that he did not engage in misconduct but instead committed an unintentional mistake. Sargent’s conduct was inadvertent and did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer. He is entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.

3. Derek Browen, Relator, vs. Thompson Construction of Princeton and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents.  A13-1392.  Filed May 19, 2014

Summary and Outcome:

Relator Derek Browen challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissing his request for reconsideration as untimely. Because Browen did not file his request within the 20-day period, the ULJ properly dismissed the appeal and we affirm.

Relator also challenges the ULJ’s determination that he refused an offer of suitable employment. DEED concedes that the ULJ erred in its determination on this issue. Browen did not accept reemployment due to his union activities. See Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(g)(3) (2012) (stating that “suitable employment” is not employment 
that would require an applicant to resign from his or her labor organization). However, because we have affirmed the ULJ’s determination that Browen quit his employment and was not entitled to benefits in the first place, the suitable-employment issue is moot and we will not address it.

Minnesota Supreme Court:  

The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet issued its decisions for this week, and did not issue any decisions on unemployment benefits last week.

May 21, 2014 Update - the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue any opinions on unemployment benefits this week.
 



 
 
Picture
Tim is teaching a seminar on unemployment benefits in less than two weeks called "Unemployment 101: Application, Process, and Appeals."  The seminar will be held from noon - 1:00 p.m. on Friday, May 23, 2014 at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303. Here is the public event description: In this FREE seminar, we will go over the process of applying for unemployment benefits and appealing an unfavorable determination. ATTORNEYS: This seminar is approved for one standard CLE credit, Event Code 190769. Space is limited, so advance registration is required. Please call (763) 450-9494 to register. Thanks