Picture
There were two unemployment decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week. Both relators dispute they are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because they quit their employment without good reason caused by their employers.  As a general rule, if you quit employment, you are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, unless you had good reason to quit caused by the employer, or one of a limited number of exceptions applies.  One of the relators is pro se, a Latin phrase that literally means "on behalf on oneself."  Both decisions were affirmed.

1.   A13-1806  Charles Lambert Bey, Relator, vs. W.W. Johnson Wholesale Meat Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Pro se relator seeks certiorari review of an unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without good reason caused by his employer. We affirm.

2.  A13-2151   Michael Robin, Relator, vs. BHSI LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Michael Robin sought unemployment benefits, but the department of employment and economic development determined that he is ineligible because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by his employer. After Robin filed an administrative appeal, an unemployment-law judge upheld the ineligibility determination and denied Robin’s request for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, 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
There were three unemployment decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week. One relator appeals the determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because of his untimely request for reconsideration. Another relator challenges his ineligibility because he misrepresented his criminal record during his employment interview, and a third relator challenges the ULJ’s decision of ineligibility, arguing that she was unaware of one her the employer’s policies. All three cases were affirmed.

1.  A13-2022   Bradley G. Bremer, Relator, vs. Thomas Allen, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.                                                                                            

Summary: Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) dismissal of his appeal of a determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Because we conclude that the ULJ correctly determined that relator’s appeal was not filed within the required statutory time frame, we affirm.

Because of Bremer’s untimely request for reconsideration, Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1(c), 2(a) (2012), and because the law provides for no exceptions to alter the statutory period, the ULJ did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the determination of ineligibility is correct. The ULJ’s determination that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits became final.

2.  A13-1951  Andrew R. Patson, Relator, vs. Skaff Apartments, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he misrepresented his criminal record during his employment interview. We affirm.

The Court was not persuaded by Patson’s focus of his challenge that his misrepresentation was inadvertent and the result of the interview questions being insufficiently clear. Because substantial evidence supported the ULJ’s determination that Patson committed employment misconduct because his misrepresentation was either intentional or negligent and was not inadvertent, the Court affirmed the ULJ’s decision.

3.  A13-2138  Pamela Jeanne Googe, Relator, vs. Capstone Services, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that she was unaware of the employer’s policy regarding the proper use of its credit card and that her use of the credit card was condoned by her supervisor. Although relator is correct that the ULJ erred by failing to set forth a reason for crediting the employer’s testimony over her testimony regarding the use of the credit card, relator was discharged for other acts of misconduct, which she does not dispute on certiorari review. Because these other acts of misconduct justify the ULJ’s denial of unemployment benefits, we affirm.



If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, 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
There was only one unemployment decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week, but the decision is noteworthy because it was reversed and the applicant was awarded unemployment benefits.  Here is the summary:   

A13-1815   Cynthia Stephen, Relator, vs. Pro Pilots, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Cynthia Stephen petitions for certiorari review of the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that each of the following constituted employment misconduct: (1) relator’s failure to provide “proper notice” to respondent Pro Pilots, LLC (employer) of her illness-related absences, and (2) relator’s “negligent” work performance.

We reverse because the ULJ erred in concluding that relator’s illness-related absences constitute employment misconduct and in determining that relator’s poor work performance was employment misconduct. Because we reverse on purely legal grounds, we do not reach relator’s arguments regarding the ULJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, 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.

PLEASE NOTE: I will be on vacation next week and unable to post my weekly update, so the summary of decisions released on July 21, 2014 will be delayed until at least July 28, 2014.

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
There are only two decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week.  Both of the decisions were affirmed -- one because the applicant did not have "good reason to quit caused by the employer," and the other because the applicant was not available for suitable work.  In the first decision, the Court makes clear that a "good reason to quit" must not be based on mere speculation.  All decisions were released on Monday 7/7/14.

A13-1572   Tamara S. Jamnick, Relator, vs. Range Mental Health Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator claims that she is eligible for benefits because she quit her employment based on a good reason caused by her employer.  Because Jamnick’s reasons for quitting were based on speculation, they would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. The ULJ therefore correctly determined that Jamnick did not quit her employment because of a good reason caused by Range.  She also challenges the ULJ’s refusal to issue a subpoena for documents from her employer and contends that her employer gave false testimony. We affirm.

A request for a subpoena may be denied if the testimony or documents sought would be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly cumulative or repetitious.” Minn. R. 3310.2914, subp. 1.  The ULJ denied Jamnick’s subpoena request because “none of the information requested would change the decision.” We agree.

A13-1997  Antionette Dunn, Relator, vs. Caremate Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Antionette Dunn challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the record does not support the decision. We affirm.

The ULJ issued a decision in this case concluding that “Dunn is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits” because she “has not been available for suitable employment.”  Because Dunn repeatedly turned down Caremate’s offers to work more hours in order to provide care for her stepdaughter, who had been in an automobile accident, it is clear that Dunn was not “ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment.” See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(a); Hansen v. Cont'l Can Co., 301 Minn. 185, 187, 221 N.W.2d 670, 672 (1974) (“A claimant may not limit [his] availability because of personal or domestic reasons unrelated to [his] employment” (quotation omitted.)). The ULJ did not err in concluding that Dunn was not available for suitable employment.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, 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 called "Bankruptcy 101: Everything You Need to Know About Bankruptcy"  The seminar will be held on Thursday 7/31/14 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.

Space is limited, so advance registration is required.  For more information and to register, please visit:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bankruptcy-101-everything-you-need-to-know-about-bankruptcy-tickets-12194422847

Here is the official description:

This seminar covers the basics of bankruptcy for consumers and small business, including the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, exemptions and ways to keep non-exempt property, and what to expect at the Meeting of Creditors and other bankruptcy-related court hearings.  Intended for consumer and small business debtors, as well as attorneys who do not handle bankruptcy cases, this seminar will introduce you to bankruptcy.

ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 193933.

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


 
 
Picture
This week’s recent decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals include one appeal by an employee who quit her job and challenged the ineligible determination based upon an exception, and two cases of employee misconduct. All decisions were affirmed. The following decisions were released on June 30, 2014.

1. A13-1822  Kimberly A. Thomas, Relator, vs. US Bank National Association,   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 relator quit her employment and fails to satisfy either of the relevant statutory exceptions that would allow for benefit eligibility.

In this case, it is undisputed that Thomas quit her job. Therefore, Thomas has to satisfy an exception in order to be eligible for benefits; (a.) serious-illness-or-injury exception; or (b.) good-reason-caused-by-the-employer exception.

Because Thomas failed to establish that it was medically necessary for her to quit her employment, and because she was not denied a requested accommodation, the ULJ did not err by concluding that she does not satisfy the serious-illness-or-injury exception.

In the good-reason-caused-by the-employer exception, the ULJ analyzed Thompson’s struggles with the bank manager and the subordinate employee involved in the December 7 incident. Because this exception “does not encompass situations where an employee experiences irreconcilable differences with others at work or where the employee is simply frustrated or dissatisfied with [her] working conditions,” Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d  12, 14 (Minn. App. 1986)

2. A 13-2137  Eldo Abrahamson, Relator, vs. Minneapolis Oxygen Comp-Joint Acct., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Relator challenges an unemployment law judge’s determination that he was dismissed for employment misconduct and thus ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Abrahamson was employed as a driver who hauled hazardous, explosive materials. After receiving two separate anonymous phone complaints about Abrahamson’s reckless driving, Abrahamson was fired in July 2013 for employee misconduct. 

The ULJ concluded that, sustained by evidence, Abrahamson’s reckless driving constituted a serious violation of the standards of behavior, and thus constituted employment misconduct.

3. A 13-2066  Ann Westre-Nelson, Relator, vs. Coborn’s Inc., Respondent, Department     of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 Summary:  In this certiorari appeal, relator Ann Westre-Nelson, a gas-station manager, challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed employment misconduct, we affirm.

If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefits, 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.