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 seminar on unemployment benefits.  The seminar will be held on Friday, June 20, 2014 from noon - 1:00 p.m. at Tim's office, 2140-4th Avenue, Anoka MN 55303.  Space is limited, and advance registration is required. Here is a link with more information and to register:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/brown-bag-seminar-unemployment-101-application-process-and-appeals-tickets-11862967455

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. 

Here is this week's installment of summaries of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  All decisions were issued on May 27, 2014.  Please note that Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. is not affiliated in any way with 
Unemployment Insurance Minnesota.

1. Douglas A. Peterson, Relator, vs. U.S. Federal Employees, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1354.

Summary: This certiorari appeal is from the decision of an unemployment-law judge that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment-compensation benefits because he was discharged from his employment for committing employment misconduct.  The misconduct in this case was not renewing a commercial driver's license ("CDL") when it was required by the applicant's job and the employer had warned the applicant to renew the CDL.  Affirmed.

2. Kathy Clark, Relator, vs. House of Charity, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1452.

Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer.  The employer had been served with a garnishment summons and complaint, and refused Relator's request to delay garnishing her wages.  Affirmed.

3. Robin Berry, Relator, vs. City of Minneapolis Public Housing, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.  Court File No. A13-1454.

Summary: Relator Robin Berry challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) she quit her employment due to good reason caused by the employer and (2) she had a serious illness or injury that made quitting medically necessary.  Affirmed.

4. Jeremy Thomsen, Relator, vs. Metes & Bounds Management Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1874.


Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision dismissing relator’s request for reconsideration as untimely, relator argues that we should consider his claims on the merits because he was unable to timely file his request for reconsideration due to problems accessing the Internet. Affirmed.


5.  Julie A. Bennett, Relator, vs. Castle Kitchen Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.  Court File No. A13-1671.


Summary: Relator contests the unemployment-law judge’s decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the unemployment-law judge properly concluded that Bennett was not actively seeking suitable employment during the period in question, 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. 

Sometimes, an employer will give you a choice between resigning and being fired.  I don't envy anybody who has made the hard choice to resign or be fired.  If you have made that choice, you may be wondering if you are eligible for unemployment benefits.

Should you apply for unemployment benefits if you were forced to resign?  The short answer is yes, but you should be prepared to appeal if (and when) your application is denied.  For more information on unemployment appeals, see my earlier blog post on the subject.  Here is a link to the article: http://www.balandlaw.com/3/category/unemployment/1.html

The so-called "choice" to resign or be fired is really not much of a choice.  I bet that most workers would prefer not to have a termination on their employment record, and who can blame them?  However, this preference may make you ineligible for unemployment benefits.

The general rule is that you are eligible for unemployment benefits if you were discharged, unless you were discharged for employment misconduct, which is a violation of the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to reasonably expect.  Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 4.  However, if you quit employment, you are not eligible for unemployment benefits unless you had good reason to quit caused by the employer.  Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 1.

Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 3 defines a "good reason to quit caused by the employer" as a reason: "(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment."  However, a "good reason to quit caused by the employer" does not exist if the reasons for the quit were caused by the employee's own employment misconduct.  Id.

The question is whether being forced to resign is a "good reason to quit caused by the employer."  The answer is that it depends.  The question of whether a termination is voluntary or involuntary is determined “not by the immediate cause or motive for the act but by whether the employee directly or indirectly exercised a free-will choice and control as to the performance or non-performance of the act.” Anson v. Fisher Amusement Corp., 254 Minn. 93, 98, 93 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1958); Wing-Piu Chan v. Pagoda, Inc., 342 N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn.Ct.App.1984)

In other words, if you freely and voluntarily quit your job, UIMN is unlikely to determine that you had "a good reason to quit caused by the employer."  In determining whether a quit was voluntary, UIMN will look at the circumstances in which you quit.  If you were forced to resign because you committed employment misconduct by violating a standard of behavior that your employer had the right to reasonably expect, then you probably did not have a "good reason to quit because 

"[w]hen an employee, in the face of allegations of misconduct, chooses to leave his employment rather than exercise his right to have the allegations determined, such action supports a finding that the employee voluntarily left his job without good cause."

Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control Comm'n, 340 N.W.2d 355 (Minn.Ct.App.1983),

On the other hand, if you were forced to resign for reasons other than employment misconduct, then you may have a "good reason to quit."  The answer -- and outcome -- really depend on the facts of the situation.

Your best bet is to meet with an attorney who handles unemployment appeals to see if you have a "good reason to quit caused by the employer."  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) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.