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 Development, Respondent.
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.