There is only one unpublished opinion on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week  The relator is pro se, meaning that he is representing himself.  Although you always have the right to represent yourself in Minnesota, representing yourself is seldom a good idea, especially when you are appealing a case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  In this case, the decision was affirmed. 


A13-1943  John Matheson, Hilltop, Minnesota (pro se relator), Progressive Action - Minnesota, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Summary: In this certiorari appeal, pro se relator appeals the unemployment-law judge’s decision that he is ineligible to receive employment benefits because he quit his job without a good reason caused by his employer.  In particular, relator argued that he had a good reason to quit caused by his employer because of an interpersonal conflict and difficulties communicating with his supervisor. 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. 

This week there were three unemployment unpublished decisions from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.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. 

There was only one unemployment decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week, but the decision is noteworthy because it was reversed and the applicant was awarded unemployment benefits.  Here is the summary:   

A13-1815   Cynthia Stephen, Relator, vs. Pro Pilots, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Cynthia Stephen petitions for certiorari review of the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that each of the following constituted employment misconduct: (1) relator’s failure to provide “proper notice” to respondent Pro Pilots, LLC (employer) of her illness-related absences, and (2) relator’s “negligent” work performance.

We reverse because the ULJ erred in concluding that relator’s illness-related absences constitute employment misconduct and in determining that relator’s poor work performance was employment misconduct. Because we reverse on purely legal grounds, we do not reach relator’s arguments regarding the ULJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations.

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.

PLEASE NOTE: I will be on vacation next week and unable to post my weekly update, so the summary of decisions released on July 21, 2014 will be delayed until at least July 28, 2014.

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.

There are only two decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week.  Both of the decisions were affirmed -- one because the applicant did not have "good reason to quit caused by the employer," and the other because the applicant was not available for suitable work.  In the first decision, the Court makes clear that a "good reason to quit" must not be based on mere speculation.  All decisions were released on Monday 7/7/14.

A13-1572   Tamara S. Jamnick, Relator, vs. Range Mental Health Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator claims that she is eligible for benefits because she quit her employment based on a good reason caused by her employer.  Because Jamnick’s reasons for quitting were based on speculation, they would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. The ULJ therefore correctly determined that Jamnick did not quit her employment because of a good reason caused by Range.  She also challenges the ULJ’s refusal to issue a subpoena for documents from her employer and contends that her employer gave false testimony. We affirm.

“A request for a subpoena may be denied if the testimony or documents sought would be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly cumulative or repetitious.” Minn. R. 3310.2914, subp. 1.  The ULJ denied Jamnick’s subpoena request because “none of the information requested would change the decision.” We agree.

A13-1997  Antionette Dunn, Relator, vs. Caremate Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Relator Antionette Dunn challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the record does not support the decision. We affirm.

The ULJ issued a decision in this case concluding that “Dunn is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits” because she “has not been available for suitable employment.”  Because Dunn repeatedly turned down Caremate’s offers to work more hours in order to provide care for her stepdaughter, who had been in an automobile accident, it is clear that Dunn was not “ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment.” See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(a); Hansen v. Cont'l Can Co., 301 Minn. 185, 187, 221 N.W.2d 670, 672 (1974) (“A claimant may not limit [his] availability because of personal or domestic reasons unrelated to [his] employment” (quotation omitted.)). The ULJ did not err in concluding that Dunn was not available for suitable employment.

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.

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. 

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 recent decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court on unemployment benefits.  This week, the Court of Appeals issued three unpublished decisions on unemployment benefits, and reversed the decision of the unemployment law judge in one of those decisions,  The Minnesota Supreme Court, whose decisions for this week have not yet been issued, did not decide any cases involving unemployment benefits last week:


Minnesota Court of Appeals:

1. Tamara Nelson, Relator v. Donnelly Development, LLC and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1288.  Filed May 19, 2014.

Summary and Outcome: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that, despite various problems and negative interactions with the new owner of the apartment building that she managed, she did not commit employment misconduct. We affirm. 

2. Alan Sargent, Relator, vs. Manny Moe & Jack of California, Inc. and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1669.  Filed May 19, 2014.

Summary and Outcome:

Relator Alan Sargent challenges an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct. Sargent argues that he did not engage in misconduct but instead committed an unintentional mistake. Sargent’s conduct was inadvertent and did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer. He is entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.

3. Derek Browen, Relator, vs. Thompson Construction of Princeton and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents.  A13-1392.  Filed May 19, 2014

Summary and Outcome:

Relator Derek Browen challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissing his request for reconsideration as untimely. Because Browen did not file his request within the 20-day period, the ULJ properly dismissed the appeal and we affirm.

Relator also challenges the ULJ’s determination that he refused an offer of suitable employment. DEED concedes that the ULJ erred in its determination on this issue. Browen did not accept reemployment due to his union activities. See Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(g)(3) (2012) (stating that “suitable employment” is not employment 
that would require an applicant to resign from his or her labor organization). However, because we have affirmed the ULJ’s determination that Browen quit his employment and was not entitled to benefits in the first place, the suitable-employment issue is moot and we will not address it.

Minnesota Supreme Court:  

The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet issued its decisions for this week, and did not issue any decisions on unemployment benefits last week.

May 21, 2014 Update - the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue any opinions on unemployment benefits this week.