Picture
The Minnesota Court of Appeals did not release any decisions on employment benefits today, Monday 6/1/15.  Instead, I am summarizing the decisions issued in the past two weeks.

May 18, 2015: A14-1811 Anita P. Doering, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the determinations of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ), arguing that the ULJ’s findings that she had fraudulently received unemployment benefits were not supported by substantial evidence and that relator did not fraudulently fail to report her hours and earnings.   We affirm.

May 26, 2015: A14-2092 Ahmed Ghanim, Relator, vs. FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by his employer.  In this case, relator quit because "the job became too difficult for him" due to health concerns which he did not report to his employer. 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 decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The first two cases are fairly typical because the affirm the rules (1.) that committing employment misconduct makes an applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits and (2.) quitting a job without good reason caused by the employer makes an applicant ineligible, unless that applicant meets an exception to the ineligibility rules.  The third case is unique because the applicant was represented by an attorney and the decision was reversed, but the reversal resulted in a denial of unemployment benefits.

1. A14-1303: Janvier LeViege, Relator, vs. U.S. Postal Service (FIC 732/Dest 1), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was terminated from employment for misconduct after twice failing to comply with the employer’s policy for reporting unscheduled absences. Relator argues that (1) she did not commit misconduct because the absences were covered under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and she complied with the FMLA’s reporting requirements; and (2) an additional hearing should have been allowed because she did not receive one of the employer’s exhibits until the hearing date. We affirm.

2. A14-1385: Angela Hofmann, Relator, vs. Minnesota Department of Health, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Angela Hofmann was a health department employee who quit her job after she could no longer meet the travel obligations of her position and her supervisor offered her 2 an extended medical leave of absence. The department of employment and economic development determined that Hofmann is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she did not fall into any exception to the statutory voluntary-quit disqualification provision, which provides that an applicant might be eligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant informs the employer of her disability and requests a reasonable accommodation, but the employer denied the request. Because Hofmann’s employer offered a reasonable accommodation based on the information Hofmann provided, we hold that the medical-necessity exception does not apply and we affirm.

3.  A14-1786: Jolene Van Wyhe, Relator, vs. Thermospas Hot Tub Products, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relater Jolene Van Wyhe brings a certiorari appeal of a determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment-law judge erred by concluding that she performed services 32 hours per week. Van Wyhe also asserts that the unemployment-law judge’s 2012 decision, which found Van Wyhe eligible for benefits under identical circumstances, collaterally estops him from now finding her ineligible. Van Wyhe further urges this court to reverse a fraud determination. Because an employee who is on call away from the worksite for 32 hours per week but not working is not “performing services” under the statute, we reverse, but do not determine the fraud issue because it is not properly before the Appeals Court.

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 one decision on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The decision underscores the rule that quitting a job without good reason caused by the employer makes an otherwise eligible applicant for unemployment benefits ineligible for those benefits.  The Court of Appeals will affirm factual findings of the Unemployment Law Judge ("ULJ") if those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

A14-1684, Lorraine Rosenthal, Relator, vs. Cardinal of Minnesota, Ltd., Respondent, Department of Employment & Economic Development, Respondent.


Relator Lorraine Rosenthal challenges the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits on the ground that the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) erred in determining that she quit her employment and was therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, even though she had voluntarily retired. Because the ULJ’s factual findings are substantially sustained by the evidence in the record, 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 one decision this week on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The case is unique because the applicant was represented by an attorney, but is ordinary because it stands for the proposition that quitting a job without good reason to quit caused by the employer makes an applicant for unemployment benefits ineligible for such benefits.

A14-0775, Kennedy N. Mogere, Relator, vs. Minnesota Masonic Home Northridge (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Kennedy Mogere challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his job without good reason to quit caused by the employer, arguing that the ULJ failed to fully develop the record. Because the ULJ fully developed the record and sufficient evidence exists to support the decision, 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 four unpublished decisions on unemployment benefits released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The first three decisions reinforce the rule that an applicant who commits employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits.  The fourth decision reinforces the rule that quitting a job without good reason caused by the employer makes an applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.

1. A14-1381 Patricia Medal, Relator, vs. Agassiz Federal Credit Union, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

By certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for unemployment misconduct. She argues that the employer failed to provide evidence that she frequently made mistakes or failed to perform her duties; that her conduct was at most unsatisfactory or the result of good-faith errors in judgment; and that she was discharged only after the board of directors was advised of the employer’s unethical conduct. We affirm.

2. A14-0778 Gloria Johnson, Relator, vs. Minneapolis Special School District #001, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that her conduct constituted ordinary negligence and was not a serious violation of the standards of behavior expected by her employer. The misconduct in this case was that the Relator, a school-bus driver, twice did not complete a required walk-through and left special-needs children on the bus after completing her route.  Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.

3.A14-1302 Jayne M. Eiden-Kellam, petitioner, Relator, vs. Mayo Clinic Health System – Fairmont, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator appeals the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct.  The misconduct in this case was that Relator, a customer-service representative for Mayo clinic, illegally accessed confidential patient information. We affirm.

4.  A14-0967 Margaret Acker, Relator, vs. Inter City Oil Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

We affirm the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for employment benefits because the record supports the ULJ’s finding that relator quit her employment.  More specifically, the ULJ found that relator had quit because she faxed a blank sheet of paper to the employer saying “You can fill this out yourself and leave my name off[.] I am DONE[.]”

The ULJ found the employer's testimony that relator had quit more credible.  The Court of Appeals did not find error in the ULJ’s credibility determinations. The ULJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.  For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's decision.

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 four decisions on unemployment benefits released this week by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  While three of the decisions were affirmed, one was reversed.  Two of the affirmed decisions stand for the proposition that a person who quits a job in ineligible for unemployment benefits unless that person had a good reason for quitting caused by the employer.  The other affirmed decision restates the rule that an appeal must be filed by a strict deadline or it will be dismissed.  In the case that was reversed, the Relator was available for suitable work -- a prerequisite to receiving unemployment benefits -- during the period for which he sought benefits.  

A14-1249, Robert S. Paxton, Relator, vs. Ind. School District #047, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that he did not have a good reason to quit caused by his employer and that certain subpoenaed records were irrelevant. 
The ULJ found that Paxton quit for four reasons and concluded that none was a good reason caused by the employer: (1) poor relations with subordinates; (2) disciplinary action taken against Paxton; (3) e-mail exchanges Paxton discovered between coworkers that he believed constituted harassment; and (4) a negotiated severance package. The record supports the ULJ’s decision that Paxton quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer.  As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's decision.

A14-1321 and A14-1325, Kari Robinson, Relator, vs. The Schuett Companies, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Kari Robinson challenges an unemployment law judge’s dismissal of her administrative appeal of two initial determinations. We conclude that the ULJ properly dismissed the administrative appeal because it was not filed within the 20-day appeal period. Therefore, we affirm.

A14-1594, Samuel I. Ricci, Relator, vs. Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Samuel Ricci challenges the unemployment-law judge’s decision that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was not available for or actively seeking suitable employment from May 11, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (the department) contends that the unemployment-law judge’s ineligibility determination should be affirmed as to the week beginning May 11, 2014, but concedes that the judge should be reversed as to the period from May 18, 2014 through June 30, 2014. Respondent Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc. advised this court that it would not be filing a brief, although it believes that the judge’s decision should be affirmed. Because Ricci was available for and actively seeking suitable employment from May 11, 2014 through June 30, 2014, we reverse the denial of benefits.

A14-0647, Michael Mudek, Relator, vs. Redtail Management, Inc. – Billy’s Bar & Grill at Breezy Point, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

We affirm the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because the record substantially supports the ULJ’s factual finding that relator quit without good reason caused by the employer.  Mudek argues that he quit because his employer reduced his hours from an average of 30 per week to four per week in response to a seasonal decline in business. In contrast, the ULJ found that Mudek quit because his campground was closing and he planned to move. The ULJ’s finding is supported by the record. Mudek testified that he planned to leave his employment after the campground shut down for the winter because he could no longer remain there and wanted to move. He requested only seasonal work in accordance with his plan to move in the fall.  Accordingly, there is substantial support in the record for the ULJ’s finding that Mudek quit to move and not because his hours were reduced.


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 decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The first two cases stand for the proposition that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant was discharged for employment misconduct.  The second case demonstrates that quitting a job without a good reason caused by the employer renders the applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.

1. A14-0860, Jacqueline Crosser, Relator, vs. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Jacqueline Crosser challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge that she was discharged for employment misconduct -- a "long-term pattern of poor attendance and tardiness" --  and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s decision, we affirm.


2. A14-1193, Lonn H. Luhman, Relator, vs. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.


Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed employment misconduct by failing to appear for work as
scheduled under the company’s no-fault attendance policy, we affirm.

3.  A14-0469, Barbara Jackson, Relator, vs. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Relator Barbara Jackson challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that the ULJ failed to apply the specific definition of “quit” for employees of a staffing service to
relator’s case and failed to develop the record. 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
Three cases involving unpublished unemployment decisions were released today.  Two were affirmed and the third was actually reversed. The first one involves a case where it is an undisputed fact that the Relator quit her job. However, the Relator challenges the ULJ’s conclusion that none of the exceptions in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 apply to her case. In the second case, the Relator was found to be ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was neither available for nor actively seeking employment. The appellate court reversed the ULJ’s decision in the third case, granting the Relator’s request to reverse, but only based upon one of her three arguments -- that she had good reason to quit due to a consultant’s nonsexual and sexual harassment and her employer’s failure to address the Relator’s complaint when given the opportunity to do so. 

A14-1320   Terrylou Cripe-Scherek, Relator vs. MNKase LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Relator Terrylou Cripe-Scherek appeals the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits after quitting her employment. Because Cripe-Scherek did not request an accommodation prior to quitting her employment, we affirm.

Relator was employed at Fantastic Sam’s and was responsible for all of the day-to-day operations of the salon, including hiring and firing employees. Approximately six weeks before quitting, Relator Cripe-Scherek was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a condition causing a blood clot to form in her leg.  Relator and her assistant manager discussed the fact that she could not continue performing her job—or any other job at Fantastic Sams—if she had to be seated 90 percent of the day.

 When Relator Cripe-Scherek quit, she told the owner that she was quitting because “her doctor put her on restrictions and she wasn’t able to work.” Relator Cripe-Scherek never asked the owner for additional leave or any other accommodation, which was one of the major reasons the appellate court affirmed the ULJ’s decision and also because she did not meet the statutory requirements for any of the exceptions under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1.

The general rule is that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant quit employment without meeting a statutory exception.  In this case, Relator's appeal was based on the statutory exception that it was medically necessary for her to quit.  However, Relator did not ask her employer to make a reasonable accommodation for her condition prior to quitting.  As such, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of benefits. 

A14-0471  Keith Travis, Relator, vs. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Respondent, Department of  Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct and because he was neither available for nor actively seeking employment.

Because of a hand injury, Travis was asked to provide Wal-Mart with medical certification several times.  Travis failed to provide one, even after he was informed that such certification was required and given nearly a month to provide it. The ULJ further found that Wal-Mart discharged Travis because he failed either to return to work after leaving to acquire the certificate. Record evidence supports these facts and is not disputed by Travis on appeal.

During the hearing, the Relator told the ULJ that his hand was still bothering him, therefore, he was not actively seeking employment and the Relator’s wife testified that because of his hand injury, he couldn’t do anything. Therefore, the Court upheld the ULJ’s decision that Travis is ineligible to receive benefits due to his unavailability for and failure to actively seek suitable employment.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.

A14-0287  Jami Sternquist, Relator, vs. PAL Management, Inc., Respondent, Department  of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 Summary:  In this certiorari appeal, relator requests reversal of the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she did not quit her employment due to a good reason caused by the employer. Relator argues that she had good reason to quit because (1) she was paid less due to her gender; (2) she was harassed by a consultant who acted in a supervisory role; and (3) she was uncomfortable managing her regional manager’s wife.

The ULJ determined that Sternquist was eligible for unemployment benefits from September 6 through September 14 because she was discharged from employment for reasons other thanemployment misconduct. But the ULJ determined that Sternquist was ineligible for unemployment benefits beginning September 15 because Sternquist notified Pawn America that she planned to quit her job as of September 19, and she quit for reasons other than a good reason caused by the employer. Sternquist requested reconsideration,and the ULJ affirmed her decision.

The Court of Appeals determined that the consultant’s nonsexual and sexual harassment, coupled with Pawn America’s failure to address Sternquist’s complaints when given a reasonable opportunity to do so, would compel an average, reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the ULJ erred by determining that Sternquist did not have a good reason to quit caused by her employer.  Because the case was reversed based on the alleged sexual harassment and failure of the employer to respond, the Court of Appeals did not address Relator's other arguments.

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 decision on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The decision was released on October 6, 2014.  The case is a good illustration that an applicant for unemployment benefits who quits employment must have a good reason to quit caused by the employer, but is noteworthy because this is the third time that the case has been before the Appeals Court.

A14-0371, Lennis Bentrud, Relator, vs. Robin Drug Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: On certiorari appeal from a determination by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits, relator argues that the ULJ erred by determining that she quit employment without good reason caused by the employer.  Relator argued that she quit because of physical harassment and intimidation directed at her by her supervisor, but the ULJ ultimately determined that Bentrud quit because her supervisor altered her timecard, with the result that she was paid for time off instead of having to take time off without pay.  The Appeals Court concluded "that a reasonable, average worker would not quit employment in favor of unemployment where the alteration to her timecard resulted in her receiving more pay than anticipated."  For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's decision that relator was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.

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
Although there were only two unpublished opinions this week, both were reversed and one was also remanded. In the first case, the Relator is found ineligible for benefits due to employee misconduct.  The Appeals Court reversed the decision, without remanding it back to the Department of Employment and Economic Development. The second case (which was reversed and remanded) relates to the Relator’s ineligibility for quitting without good reason attributable to his employer.

1.  A13-2346  Richard Hammerstad, Relator, vs. Princeton Auto Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct.  Princeton Auto Center (the employer) claimed that the employee did not have a valid driver’s license due to a recent DUI and is therefore not able to drive vehicles and perform his duties as described at time of hire.

During the hearing, the ULJ asked Princeton whether a license was a requirement of Hammerstad’s job, and Princeton responded, “Yes. Mr. Hammerstad was a service technician and driving vehicles is a required part of the job due to diagnosis and other facets of vehicle repair.”  Princeton acknowledged that, when it hired Hammerstad, it knew that Hammerstad did not have a driver’s license. Hammerstad argues that his lack of a valid driver’s license did not constitute employment misconduct. Under the circumstances in this case, we agree, and reverse.

2.  A14-0050  Benson Giwa, Relator, vs. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without good reason attributable to his employer.  Giwa asserted two separate bases for quitting his job: (1) he was subjected to harassment by coworkers; and (2) Wal-Mart breached its agreement to schedule Giwa to work four days each week.

Giwa claimed that from 2004 to 2013 he was subjected to racial slurs and harassment by department managers. During these years, Giwa made numerous complaints about the harassment and racial slurs to various managers, but nothing was ever done about it.  Finally, March 2012, Giwa complained to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), who then recommended mediation for Giwa and Wal-Mart. However, Wal-Mart representatives failed to show up at any of the three scheduled mediation appointments. 

Wal-Mart then began to schedule Giwa to only one day of work instead of his usual four days. The ULJ characterized Wal-Mart’s scheduling of Giwa as a “simple mistake” and determined that “a single week of reduced hours would not compel the average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed.” The Court stated, “We cannot determine the legal issue of whether Giwa’s reason for quitting amounted to ‘good cause’ because ULJ’s factual findings are not ‘substantially sustain[ed]’ by the evidence in the record.”  For this reason, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 

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.