There were three decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The first decision is unique because it is published (probably it recognizes that "court’s opinion in Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC, 834 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. App. 2013), was abrogated by the legislature’s 2014 amendments to the statute." The second is unique because the Relator is represented by an attorney (but still lost). The third is a fairly typical employment misconduct case, but is nevertheless unique because it has a dissent - and, if the Relator appeals, is probably headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court.
1. A15-0797 Clifford G. Menyweather, Relator, vs. Fedtech, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
An applicant for unemployment benefits is temporarily ineligible if the applicant is entitled to severance pay in an amount that exceeds the weekly amount of unemployment benefits. Pursuant to section 268.085, subdivision 3(b), of the Minnesota Statutes, the period of ineligibility is “the period immediately following the later of the date of separation from employment or the date the applicant first becomes aware that the employer will be making a [severance] payment,” regardless of “[t]he date the payment is actually made or received.”
2. A15-0298 Eugene Boisson, Relator, vs. Shepard Parking, LLC, Respondent, Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that he received constitutionally adequate notice related to his receipt of benefits. Because we conclude that the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) notice was reasonably calculated to apprise relator of the effects of failing to turn in a questionnaire or appeal an initial decision, we affirm.
3. A15-0474 Georgina Pletcher, Relator, vs. River Hill Assisted Living, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that she was a good employee and that the employer fabricated the allegations against her. The misconduct in this case was displaying an unprofessional demeanor and attitude in the workplace, but the dissent did not think the behavior in question rose to the level of employment misconduct. 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.
1. A15-0797 Clifford G. Menyweather, Relator, vs. Fedtech, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
An applicant for unemployment benefits is temporarily ineligible if the applicant is entitled to severance pay in an amount that exceeds the weekly amount of unemployment benefits. Pursuant to section 268.085, subdivision 3(b), of the Minnesota Statutes, the period of ineligibility is “the period immediately following the later of the date of separation from employment or the date the applicant first becomes aware that the employer will be making a [severance] payment,” regardless of “[t]he date the payment is actually made or received.”
2. A15-0298 Eugene Boisson, Relator, vs. Shepard Parking, LLC, Respondent, Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that he received constitutionally adequate notice related to his receipt of benefits. Because we conclude that the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) notice was reasonably calculated to apprise relator of the effects of failing to turn in a questionnaire or appeal an initial decision, we affirm.
3. A15-0474 Georgina Pletcher, Relator, vs. River Hill Assisted Living, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that she was a good employee and that the employer fabricated the allegations against her. The misconduct in this case was displaying an unprofessional demeanor and attitude in the workplace, but the dissent did not think the behavior in question rose to the level of employment misconduct. 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.
RSS Feed