Picture
Here is a summary of recent decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were released today, Monday 6/23/2014, and were affirmed.

1. A14-0155, Abdel M. El Rashidi, Relator, vs. Building Materials Manufacturing Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  This certiorari appeal is from an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that relator’s request for reconsideration was untimely because he missed the deadline for filing a request for reconsideration by two weeks.  We affirm.


2. A13-1745, Stephen R. Colburn, Relator, vs. Top Tool Company, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was dismissed for employment misconduct -- making repeated errors that cost the employer a significant amount of money.  Relator argues that he was dismissed only for performance deficiencies that did not amount to misconduct.   We affirm.


3. A13-1739, Willie Harris, Relator, vs.Summit Early Learning Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  We affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because the record substantially supports the ULJ’s conclusion that relator violated her employer’s instructions to avoid confrontations with other employees.


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
Tim is teaching a seminar for employers titled "What Employers Need to Know About Unemployment Benefits and Appeals."  The FREE seminar will be held on Friday, July 11, 2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.

In this seminar, we will cover everything that an employer needs to know about unemployment, from the initial eligibility determination, misconduct. good reason to quit caused by the employer, and the appeals process for both employers and applicants, including the evidentiary hearing, request for reconsideration, and Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The intended audience of this seminar is employers who want to know more about unemployment insurance and are facing or may be facing a former employee in the unemployment arena, as well as attorneys or other person who represent employers in unemployment appeals.  ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 193184.

Space is limited, so advance registration is required.  For more information and to register, please visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brown-bag-seminar-what-employers-need-to-know-about-unemployment-benefits-and-appeals-tickets-11961036783



 
 
Picture
Here is this week's summary of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Decisions that were released this week include one appeal by an employer and two cases that were reversed and remanded (sent back to the department that made the decision) for further proceedings.   All decisions were released on Monday, June 16, 2014.


1. A13-1762  Shatante Boyd, Respondent, vs. Atterro, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Atterro Inc. employed Shatante Boyd until her latest temporary assignment ended.  Boyd applied for unemployment benefits. The department deemed Boyd ineligible. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) held that Boyd was eligible for benefits, finding that although she failed to ask Atterro to give her a new assignment, she had a good reason for not doing so. A different ULJ reconsidered that decision and determined that Boyd is eligible not because she had good reason for failing to ask for a new assignment but because she had in fact requested a new assignment.


Because the evidence does not support the second ULJ’s finding that Boyd affirmatively requested a new assignment, we reverse. But because the final decision supersedes the previous ULJ’s decision and includes no finding as to whether Boyd had a good reason for not making the request, we remand for the necessary findings.


2. A13-1832, Kolo Howard, Relator, vs. Select Senior Living, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator, a health aide at a senior living facility, is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct after failing to timely respond to residents’ requests for medical assistance, relator argues that (1) the ULJ failed to provide her with a fair hearing; (2) her employer fabricated claims that she failed to perform her job duties; and (3) the residents rejected her care because of her ethnicity. Because the ULJ failed to assist relator, a pro se party, in obtaining material evidence allegedly favorable to her, we reverse and remand.


3.  A13-1674 Liban Mohamed, Relator, vs. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct -- excessive absenteeism. 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
Tim is teaching a FREE bankruptcy seminar.  The seminar will be held on Thursday, June 26, 2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.

ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 193157.

DISCLAIMER: Tim is a debt-relief agent, and his office is a debt-relief agency.  Tim helps people like you to file for bankruptcy


For more information or to register, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brown-bag-seminar-bankruptcy-for-beginners-tickets-11976615379.
.

 
 
Picture
Here is my summary of this week's decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were released today, M

1. A13-1737 , Joshua C. Steel, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic DevelopmentRespondent.

Summary: In this certiorari appeal, relator argues that the unemployment-law judge’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.  More specifically, the unemployment law judge that Steel was working in excess of 32 hours per week and had obtained unemployment benefits through fraud.  This case is notable because of the dissent, which argues that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and likewise that substantial evidence did not support a fraud determination.   We affirm.

2.  A13-1609, Evonne Thode, Relator, vs. Public Employees Retirement Association, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Evonne Thode was terminated from her job because she violated her employer’s data-privacy policies. She sought unemployment benefits, but the department of employment and economic development determined that she is ineligible because she was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm.

3. A13-1986, Sandra Haub, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  In a certiorari appeal from a determination of ineligibility on grounds that relator was not actively seeking employment, relator argues that the decision was erroneous because her documented work- search activities fulfilled her DEED-approved work search plan and that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing so that the unemployment law judge may consider her work search plan.  We reverse.

4. A13-1810, Brian Stuckey, Relator, vs. North Oaks Holiday and Auto Service, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Relator Brian Stuckey was discharged from his job as an automotive technician at respondent North Oaks Holiday and Auto Service, Inc., after several instances of inattentiveness in servicing customers’ vehicles. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that relator committed employment misconduct, which rendered him ineligible for unemployment benefits, 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
Tim is teaching a FREE seminar on unemployment benefits.  The seminar will be held on Friday, June 20, 2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.  Space is limited, and advance registration is required. Here is a link with more information and to register:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brown-bag-seminar-unemployment-101-application-process-and-appeals-tickets-11862967455

 
 
Picture
Here is a summary of decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals on unemployment benefits.  All of these decisions were released on June 3, 2014.  The Appeals Court issued four decisions relating to unemployment benefits this week, including one case that was reversed.  I don't see too many reversals from the Court of Appeals, but they do happen.


1. A13-1507, Daniel Ray Hernandez, Relator, vs. Mydatt Services, Inc.,Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: Mydatt Services, Inc., discharged Daniel Hernandez after he asked another employee to conduct video surveillance of a subordinate, violating Mydatt employment policy. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development initially awarded Hernandez unemployment benefits, but Mydatt successfully appealed 
administratively to an unemployment law judge. Because Mydatt terminated Hernandez’s employment because of employment misconduct, we affirm.


2. A13-1505, Stacey J. Jorgenson, Relator, vs.Recover Health Services LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Stacey J. Jorgenson was employed by Recover Health Services LLC until she quit. She sought unemployment benefits, but the department of employment and economic development determined that she is ineligible because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by her employer. We affirm.


3. A13-1527, Benjamin C. Van Sant, Relator, vs.Modernistic, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: Relator Benjamin C. Van Sant challenges the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits based on a determination that he committed employment misconduct by disregarding a supervisor's instruction about sending unapproved e-mails on policy changes and new procedures to fellow employees. We affirm.


4. A13-1805, Christina Ruscher, Relator, vs. A’viands LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent

Summary: Relator-employee challenges the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) erred by determining that she was discharged for employment misconduct. Because substantial evidence does not support the ULJ’s factual finding and because a good-faith error in judgment is not employment misconduct, we reverse.


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.