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. 

 


Comments

11/18/2015 1:53pm

Decision on the employment opportunities is given by the court. It is was expected that court would give an explicit and expressive judgement, but the judgement is sedate and implicit. The decision has not quick and brisk ramification or action to be taken by the authorities.

Reply



Leave a Reply