This week there were three unemployment unpublished decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Two relators challenge the ULJ’s decision that they are ineligible for unemployment benefits because they committed employment misconduct and the third relator cites several reasons for challenging the ULJ’s decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. All three were affirmed.

1.  A13-2026   James Richarson, Jr., Relator, vs. Alamco Wood Products LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator James Richardson Jr. challenges the unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he committed employment misconduct. Because the unemployment-law judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and because Richardson’s violation of the no-smoking policy is employment misconduct, we affirm.

2.  A13-2370  Steve Morris Smith, Relator, vs. Family Life Mental Health Center, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary:  On appeal from the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct, appellant argues that the ULJ: (1) erred by determining that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits; and (2) abused his discretion by denying his request for an additional evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

3.  A13-2347  Brian Freed, Relator, vs. Wholesale Tire & Wheel of MN, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

 Summary: Relator Brian Freed challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) he made a good-faith error in judgment; (2) his conduct was that of a reasonable average employee; (3) respondent-employer lied during his testimony at the evidentiary hearing; and (4) respondent-employer engaged in employer retaliation. 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. 

Tim is teaching a FREE seminar on what every employer needs to know about unemployment benefits and appeals.  The seminar will be held on Friday 8/15/2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.  Here is the official description:

In this FREE seminar, we will cover unemployment benefits and appeals from the employer's perspective, including an employee's initial application, determination of eligibility or ineligibility, responding to a request for information from Unemployment Insurance Minnesota, and appealing an unfavorable determination.  This seminar is geared for employers, human resource professionals, and attorneys who represent them in the unemployment arena.

ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 194856.

Space is limited, so advance registration is required.  For more information and to register, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/what-employers-need-to-know-about-unemployment-benefits-and-appeals-tickets-12490815365

There were three unemployment decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week. One relator appeals the determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because of his untimely request for reconsideration. Another relator challenges his ineligibility because he misrepresented his criminal record during his employment interview, and a third relator challenges the ULJ’s decision of ineligibility, arguing that she was unaware of one her the employer’s policies. All three cases were affirmed.

1.  A13-2022   Bradley G. Bremer, Relator, vs. Thomas Allen, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.                                                                                            

Summary: Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) dismissal of his appeal of a determination that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Because we conclude that the ULJ correctly determined that relator’s appeal was not filed within the required statutory time frame, we affirm.

Because of Bremer’s untimely request for reconsideration, Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1(c), 2(a) (2012), and because the law provides for no exceptions to alter the statutory period, the ULJ did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the determination of ineligibility is correct. The ULJ’s determination that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits became final.

2.  A13-1951  Andrew R. Patson, Relator, vs. Skaff Apartments, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he misrepresented his criminal record during his employment interview. We affirm.

The Court was not persuaded by Patson’s focus of his challenge that his misrepresentation was inadvertent and the result of the interview questions being insufficiently clear. Because substantial evidence supported the ULJ’s determination that Patson committed employment misconduct because his misrepresentation was either intentional or negligent and was not inadvertent, the Court affirmed the ULJ’s decision.

3.  A13-2138  Pamela Jeanne Googe, Relator, vs. Capstone Services, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that she was unaware of the employer’s policy regarding the proper use of its credit card and that her use of the credit card was condoned by her supervisor. Although relator is correct that the ULJ erred by failing to set forth a reason for crediting the employer’s testimony over her testimony regarding the use of the credit card, relator was discharged for other acts of misconduct, which she does not dispute on certiorari review. Because these other acts of misconduct justify the ULJ’s denial of unemployment benefits, 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. 

Tim is teaching a seminar called "Bankruptcy 101: Everything You Need to Know About Bankruptcy"  The seminar will be held on Thursday 7/31/14 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.

Space is limited, so advance registration is required.  For more information and to register, please visit:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bankruptcy-101-everything-you-need-to-know-about-bankruptcy-tickets-12194422847

Here is the official description:

This seminar covers the basics of bankruptcy for consumers and small business, including the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, exemptions and ways to keep non-exempt property, and what to expect at the Meeting of Creditors and other bankruptcy-related court hearings.  Intended for consumer and small business debtors, as well as attorneys who do not handle bankruptcy cases, this seminar will introduce you to bankruptcy.

ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 193933.

WARNING: Tim is a debt-relief agent, and his office is a debt-relief agency.  Tim helps people like you to file for bankruptcy relief.

Here is a summary of recent decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were released today, Monday 6/23/2014, and were affirmed.

1. A14-0155, Abdel M. El Rashidi, Relator, vs. Building Materials Manufacturing Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  This certiorari appeal is from an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that relator’s request for reconsideration was untimely because he missed the deadline for filing a request for reconsideration by two weeks.  We affirm.


2. A13-1745, Stephen R. Colburn, Relator, vs. Top Tool Company, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was dismissed for employment misconduct -- making repeated errors that cost the employer a significant amount of money.  Relator argues that he was dismissed only for performance deficiencies that did not amount to misconduct.   We affirm.


3. A13-1739, Willie Harris, Relator, vs.Summit Early Learning Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  We affirm the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because the record substantially supports the ULJ’s conclusion that relator violated her employer’s instructions to avoid confrontations with other employees.


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. 

Here is this week's summary of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Decisions that were released this week include one appeal by an employer and two cases that were reversed and remanded (sent back to the department that made the decision) for further proceedings.   All decisions were released on Monday, June 16, 2014.


1. A13-1762  Shatante Boyd, Respondent, vs. Atterro, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Atterro Inc. employed Shatante Boyd until her latest temporary assignment ended.  Boyd applied for unemployment benefits. The department deemed Boyd ineligible. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) held that Boyd was eligible for benefits, finding that although she failed to ask Atterro to give her a new assignment, she had a good reason for not doing so. A different ULJ reconsidered that decision and determined that Boyd is eligible not because she had good reason for failing to ask for a new assignment but because she had in fact requested a new assignment.


Because the evidence does not support the second ULJ’s finding that Boyd affirmatively requested a new assignment, we reverse. But because the final decision supersedes the previous ULJ’s decision and includes no finding as to whether Boyd had a good reason for not making the request, we remand for the necessary findings.


2. A13-1832, Kolo Howard, Relator, vs. Select Senior Living, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator, a health aide at a senior living facility, is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct after failing to timely respond to residents’ requests for medical assistance, relator argues that (1) the ULJ failed to provide her with a fair hearing; (2) her employer fabricated claims that she failed to perform her job duties; and (3) the residents rejected her care because of her ethnicity. Because the ULJ failed to assist relator, a pro se party, in obtaining material evidence allegedly favorable to her, we reverse and remand.


3.  A13-1674 Liban Mohamed, Relator, vs. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct -- excessive absenteeism. 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. 

Tim is teaching a FREE bankruptcy seminar.  The seminar will be held on Thursday, June 26, 2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.

ATTORNEYS: This seminar has been approved for one standard CLE credit.  The event code is 193157.

DISCLAIMER: Tim is a debt-relief agent, and his office is a debt-relief agency.  Tim helps people like you to file for bankruptcy


For more information or to register, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brown-bag-seminar-bankruptcy-for-beginners-tickets-11976615379.
.

Here is my summary of this week's decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were released today, M

Here is a summary of decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals on unemployment benefits.  All of these decisions were released on June 3, 2014.  The Appeals Court issued four decisions relating to unemployment benefits this week, including one case that was reversed.  I don't see too many reversals from the Court of Appeals, but they do happen.


1. A13-1507, Daniel Ray Hernandez, Relator, vs. Mydatt Services, Inc.,Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: Mydatt Services, Inc., discharged Daniel Hernandez after he asked another employee to conduct video surveillance of a subordinate, violating Mydatt employment policy. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development initially awarded Hernandez unemployment benefits, but Mydatt successfully appealed 
administratively to an unemployment law judge. Because Mydatt terminated Hernandez’s employment because of employment misconduct, we affirm.


2. A13-1505, Stacey J. Jorgenson, Relator, vs.Recover Health Services LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary:  Stacey J. Jorgenson was employed by Recover Health Services LLC until she quit. She sought unemployment benefits, but the department of employment and economic development determined that she is ineligible because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by her employer. We affirm.


3. A13-1527, Benjamin C. Van Sant, Relator, vs.Modernistic, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Summary: Relator Benjamin C. Van Sant challenges the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits based on a determination that he committed employment misconduct by disregarding a supervisor's instruction about sending unapproved e-mails on policy changes and new procedures to fellow employees. We affirm.


4. A13-1805, Christina Ruscher, Relator, vs. A’viands LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. 

Summary: Relator-employee challenges the denial of her claim for unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) erred by determining that she was discharged for employment misconduct. Because substantial evidence does not support the ULJ’s factual finding and because a good-faith error in judgment is not employment misconduct, we reverse.


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.