There were three decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The first two cases deal with employment misconduct that makes an applicant ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. The third addresses the issue of whether payments received from a former employer that are unrelated to the reason for termination meet the statutory definition of severance payments that delay the receipt of unemployment benefits.
1. A14-1269, Dan Delk, III, Relator, vs. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that he did not commit misconduct by failing to work two scheduled shifts after his Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave ended. We affirm.
2. A14-1040, Paul C. Stepnes, Relator, vs. HOM Furniture, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. The misconduct in this case was angrily confronting supervisors and co-workers on at least two occasions. We affirm.
3. A14-1593, Robert R. Adams, Relator, vs. Select Communications, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Robert R. Adams was deemed temporarily ineligible for unemployment benefits because he received a separation payment from his former employer. He argues that his period of ineligibility should be limited because most of the money included in the separation payment is unrelated to his termination. We conclude that the entire separation payment is within the statutory definition of severance pay and, thus, 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.
1. A14-1269, Dan Delk, III, Relator, vs. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that he did not commit misconduct by failing to work two scheduled shifts after his Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave ended. We affirm.
2. A14-1040, Paul C. Stepnes, Relator, vs. HOM Furniture, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. The misconduct in this case was angrily confronting supervisors and co-workers on at least two occasions. We affirm.
3. A14-1593, Robert R. Adams, Relator, vs. Select Communications, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Robert R. Adams was deemed temporarily ineligible for unemployment benefits because he received a separation payment from his former employer. He argues that his period of ineligibility should be limited because most of the money included in the separation payment is unrelated to his termination. We conclude that the entire separation payment is within the statutory definition of severance pay and, thus, 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.
RSS Feed