There were three decisions on unemployment benefits issued by the Court of Appeals today.  The decisions all stand for the proposition that employment misconduct will make an otherwise eligible applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.  Without further ado, here is the summary:

1. A14-0659, DuWayne H. Fries, Relator, vs. Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct -- violating his employer's safety policy and guidelines for operating forklifts. He also moves to correct the record to include the corporate owner of his employer as a party to this matter. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm. Because substantial evidence demonstrates that relator was employed by respondent Ozark Automotive Distributor’s, Inc. (Ozark), we deny the motion to correct the record.

2. A14-0651, Murray Gushulak,Relator, vs. Boise Paper Holdings, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,Respondent.

Murray Gushulak twice attempted to take a shortcut walking through an area near his employer’s crane operation that was cordoned off by red tape. He knew his encroachment violated company policy. His employer discharged him, and an unemployment law judge determined that he is ineligible for benefits. Because the unemployment law judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and because Gushulak’s willful disregard of company policy constitutes employment misconduct, we affirm.

3.  A14-0853, Michael Rahier, Relator, vs. Valley Markets, Inc. – Hugo’s, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) conclusion that he was discharged for employment misconduct and ineligible for unemployment benefits.  The misconduct in this case was violating the employer's policies by using the back receiving door when he was not permitted to enter and exit using that door, consuming food on the sales floor, and working on unauthorized projects at home.  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.  



07/28/2016 4:38pm

This claim form is the biggest facility for the unemployed person and this use to happen in only Europe countries. But it look like this really require a good office work to get it .


Leave a Reply