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.