There were a total of 7 decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Two of the cases are fairly unique. In Shah, there was a dissenting opinion, which is fairly rare for an unemployment appeal. The other unique case was Without further ado, here is the summary:
1. A14-1080 Robin Larson, Relator, vs. Capstone Services, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment 2 misconduct. Because relator’s conduct of gossiping about co-workers evinced a serious violation of the conduct the employer had a right to reasonably expect, we affirm.
2. A14-1705 Cassandra Tart, Relator, vs. American Indian Community Development Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
On certiorari appeal from the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct based on tardiness and early departures, relator argues that (1) the ULJ’s decision is not supported by the record and (2) the ULJ failed to fully develop the record with respect to relator’s depression and illness. We affirm.
3. A14-1787 Chandler Billings, Respondent, vs. 65th Street Property Management, LLC, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
A man was fired from his job because he cleaned and put away his tools at the end of his workday, rather than leaving the workplace immediately after his work was completed without cleaning and putting away the tools. An unemployment-law judge concluded that he did not engage in employment misconduct. We affirm.
4. A14-1250 Wajiha Shirin Shah, Relator, vs. IMI’s MN, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred in determining that she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer and contending that she was constructively discharged. More specifically, Relator told her employer that she could not work on Fridays because that was a day of religious observance for her.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's determination that Relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits, but the dissent argued that the case should be remanded because the record was not clear whether the employer would have accommodated Relator's request to have Fridays off and whether Relator's religious convictions were sincere.
5. A14-1301 Christine M. Berglund, Relator, vs. Kozlak’s Royal Oak Rest Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development.
1. A14-1080 Robin Larson, Relator, vs. Capstone Services, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment 2 misconduct. Because relator’s conduct of gossiping about co-workers evinced a serious violation of the conduct the employer had a right to reasonably expect, we affirm.
2. A14-1705 Cassandra Tart, Relator, vs. American Indian Community Development Corp., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
On certiorari appeal from the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct based on tardiness and early departures, relator argues that (1) the ULJ’s decision is not supported by the record and (2) the ULJ failed to fully develop the record with respect to relator’s depression and illness. We affirm.
3. A14-1787 Chandler Billings, Respondent, vs. 65th Street Property Management, LLC, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
A man was fired from his job because he cleaned and put away his tools at the end of his workday, rather than leaving the workplace immediately after his work was completed without cleaning and putting away the tools. An unemployment-law judge concluded that he did not engage in employment misconduct. We affirm.
4. A14-1250 Wajiha Shirin Shah, Relator, vs. IMI’s MN, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred in determining that she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer and contending that she was constructively discharged. More specifically, Relator told her employer that she could not work on Fridays because that was a day of religious observance for her.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's determination that Relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits, but the dissent argued that the case should be remanded because the record was not clear whether the employer would have accommodated Relator's request to have Fridays off and whether Relator's religious convictions were sincere.
5. A14-1301 Christine M. Berglund, Relator, vs. Kozlak’s Royal Oak Rest Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development.
Relator challenges the determination by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that: (1) the ULJ’s findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (2) the ULJ erred by applying an incorrect legal standard to determine whether relator made consistent efforts to control her chemical dependency. We reverse.
6. A14-1814 Tremayne Penny-Ruffin, Relator, vs. Carl Larry Powers, III, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Police charged delivery driver Tremayne Penny-Ruffin with careless driving and impaired driving, and he pleaded guilty to careless driving. Penny-Ruffin did not report 2 the infraction to his employer, Power Investment. Power Investment terminated his employment when it learned of the conviction. An unemployment law judge determined that Penny-Ruffin engaged in employment misconduct and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Penny-Ruffin argues that Power Investment discharged him for something other than his conviction and failure to report, that it should have merely suspended him, and that the unemployment law judge did not give him a fair hearing. The judge’s holding as to the reason for the discharge rests on a credibility finding that we will not disturb. Whether the employer’s policy directs lesser punishment is irrelevant to our review. And the alleged unfairness did not prejudice Penny-Ruffin. We affirm.
7. A14-2007 Nancy E. Ristow, Relator, vs. Mental Health Resources, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that she did not arrive to work late in June 2014 or falsify her timecard. Relator also asserts that the ULJ unfairly conducted the hearing. 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.
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