There are only two decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week. Both of the decisions were affirmed -- one because the applicant did not have "good reason to quit caused by the employer," and the other because the applicant was not available for suitable work. In the first decision, the Court makes clear that a "good reason to quit" must not be based on mere speculation. All decisions were released on Monday 7/7/14.
A13-1572 Tamara S. Jamnick, Relator, vs. Range Mental Health Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator claims that she is eligible for benefits because she quit her employment based on a good reason caused by her employer. Because Jamnick’s reasons for quitting were based on speculation, they would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. The ULJ therefore correctly determined that Jamnick did not quit her employment because of a good reason caused by Range. She also challenges the ULJ’s refusal to issue a subpoena for documents from her employer and contends that her employer gave false testimony. We affirm.
“A request for a subpoena may be denied if the testimony or documents sought would be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly cumulative or repetitious.” Minn. R. 3310.2914, subp. 1. The ULJ denied Jamnick’s subpoena request because “none of the information requested would change the decision.” We agree.
A13-1997 Antionette Dunn, Relator, vs. Caremate Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Antionette Dunn challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the record does not support the decision. We affirm.
The ULJ issued a decision in this case concluding that “Dunn is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits” because she “has not been available for suitable employment.” Because Dunn repeatedly turned down Caremate’s offers to work more hours in order to provide care for her stepdaughter, who had been in an automobile accident, it is clear that Dunn was not “ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment.” See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(a); Hansen v. Cont'l Can Co., 301 Minn. 185, 187, 221 N.W.2d 670, 672 (1974) (“A claimant may not limit [his] availability because of personal or domestic reasons unrelated to [his] employment” (quotation omitted.)). The ULJ did not err in concluding that Dunn was not available for suitable employment.
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.
A13-1572 Tamara S. Jamnick, Relator, vs. Range Mental Health Center, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Relator claims that she is eligible for benefits because she quit her employment based on a good reason caused by her employer. Because Jamnick’s reasons for quitting were based on speculation, they would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. The ULJ therefore correctly determined that Jamnick did not quit her employment because of a good reason caused by Range. She also challenges the ULJ’s refusal to issue a subpoena for documents from her employer and contends that her employer gave false testimony. We affirm.
“A request for a subpoena may be denied if the testimony or documents sought would be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly cumulative or repetitious.” Minn. R. 3310.2914, subp. 1. The ULJ denied Jamnick’s subpoena request because “none of the information requested would change the decision.” We agree.
A13-1997 Antionette Dunn, Relator, vs. Caremate Home Health Care, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator Antionette Dunn challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) determination that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the record does not support the decision. We affirm.
The ULJ issued a decision in this case concluding that “Dunn is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits” because she “has not been available for suitable employment.” Because Dunn repeatedly turned down Caremate’s offers to work more hours in order to provide care for her stepdaughter, who had been in an automobile accident, it is clear that Dunn was not “ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment.” See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(a); Hansen v. Cont'l Can Co., 301 Minn. 185, 187, 221 N.W.2d 670, 672 (1974) (“A claimant may not limit [his] availability because of personal or domestic reasons unrelated to [his] employment” (quotation omitted.)). The ULJ did not err in concluding that Dunn was not available for suitable employment.
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