There were two decisions this week on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Both cases highlight the rule that employment misconduct will make an applicant who is otherwise eligible for unemployment benefits ineligible for those benefits.
1. A14-1139, Kelly Smith, Relator, vs. Hoff Diamonds and Gems, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
This certiorari appeal is from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his employment for employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was an inability to get along with coworkers and using profanity on at least two occasions. The employer had a right to reasonably expect that relator would not use profane language while speaking with his coworkers in the workplace. Relator’s repeated use of profanity was a serious violation of this standard of behavior, and it clearly displayed a substantial lack of concern for his employment. As such, the decision denying unemployment benefits was affirmed.
2. A14-0729, Jean M. Ritter, Relator, vs. Inter City Oil Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was terminated from employment for misconduct. Relator argues that the conduct that led to her termination from employment was a single incident and that the employer’s evidence was not credible. In this case, the ULJ found that relator repeatedly made disparaging remarks about the supervisor and that she was repeatedly instructed not to do so.
The employer’s directives to relator that she could not continue to engage in unprofessional behavior and name-calling were reasonable, and the employer had the right to reasonably expect relator to follow the directives. Relator’s repeated failures to follow the directives were employment misconduct. Accordingly, the decision denying unemployment benefits was affirmed.
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. A14-1139, Kelly Smith, Relator, vs. Hoff Diamonds and Gems, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
This certiorari appeal is from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his employment for employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was an inability to get along with coworkers and using profanity on at least two occasions. The employer had a right to reasonably expect that relator would not use profane language while speaking with his coworkers in the workplace. Relator’s repeated use of profanity was a serious violation of this standard of behavior, and it clearly displayed a substantial lack of concern for his employment. As such, the decision denying unemployment benefits was affirmed.
2. A14-0729, Jean M. Ritter, Relator, vs. Inter City Oil Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was terminated from employment for misconduct. Relator argues that the conduct that led to her termination from employment was a single incident and that the employer’s evidence was not credible. In this case, the ULJ found that relator repeatedly made disparaging remarks about the supervisor and that she was repeatedly instructed not to do so.
The employer’s directives to relator that she could not continue to engage in unprofessional behavior and name-calling were reasonable, and the employer had the right to reasonably expect relator to follow the directives. Relator’s repeated failures to follow the directives were employment misconduct. Accordingly, the decision denying unemployment benefits was affirmed.
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