There were three decisions on unemployment benefits this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The first two cases stand for the proposition that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if that applicant was discharged for employment misconduct. The second case demonstrates that quitting a job without a good reason caused by the employer renders the applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.
1. A14-0860, Jacqueline Crosser, Relator, vs. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Jacqueline Crosser challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge that she was discharged for employment misconduct -- a "long-term pattern of poor attendance and tardiness" -- and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s decision, we affirm.
2. A14-1193, Lonn H. Luhman, Relator, vs. Red Wing Shoe Co., 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 employment misconduct. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed employment misconduct by failing to appear for work as
scheduled under the company’s no-fault attendance policy, we affirm.
3. A14-0469, Barbara Jackson, Relator, vs. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Barbara Jackson challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that the ULJ failed to apply the specific definition of “quit” for employees of a staffing service to
relator’s case and failed to develop the record. 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. A14-0860, Jacqueline Crosser, Relator, vs. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Jacqueline Crosser challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge that she was discharged for employment misconduct -- a "long-term pattern of poor attendance and tardiness" -- and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge’s decision, we affirm.
2. A14-1193, Lonn H. Luhman, Relator, vs. Red Wing Shoe Co., 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 employment misconduct. Because we find that substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that relator committed employment misconduct by failing to appear for work as
scheduled under the company’s no-fault attendance policy, we affirm.
3. A14-0469, Barbara Jackson, Relator, vs. Direct Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Barbara Jackson challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. Relator also argues that the ULJ failed to apply the specific definition of “quit” for employees of a staffing service to
relator’s case and failed to develop the record. 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