There were four unpublished decisions on unemployment benefits released by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The first three decisions reinforce the rule that an applicant who commits employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fourth decision reinforces the rule that quitting a job without good reason caused by the employer makes an applicant ineligible for unemployment benefits.
1. A14-1381 Patricia Medal, Relator, vs. Agassiz Federal Credit Union, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
By certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for unemployment misconduct. She argues that the employer failed to provide evidence that she frequently made mistakes or failed to perform her duties; that her conduct was at most unsatisfactory or the result of good-faith errors in judgment; and that she was discharged only after the board of directors was advised of the employer’s unethical conduct. We affirm.
2. A14-0778 Gloria Johnson, Relator, vs. Minneapolis Special School District #001, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that her conduct constituted ordinary negligence and was not a serious violation of the standards of behavior expected by her employer. The misconduct in this case was that the Relator, a school-bus driver, twice did not complete a required walk-through and left special-needs children on the bus after completing her route. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.
3.A14-1302 Jayne M. Eiden-Kellam, petitioner, Relator, vs. Mayo Clinic Health System – Fairmont, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator appeals the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was that Relator, a customer-service representative for Mayo clinic, illegally accessed confidential patient information. We affirm.
4. A14-0967 Margaret Acker, Relator, vs. Inter City Oil Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
We affirm the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for employment benefits because the record supports the ULJ’s finding that relator quit her employment. More specifically, the ULJ found that relator had quit because she faxed a blank sheet of paper to the employer saying “You can fill this out yourself and leave my name off[.] I am DONE[.]”
The ULJ found the employer's testimony that relator had quit more credible. The Court of Appeals did not find error in the ULJ’s credibility determinations. The ULJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's decision.
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. A14-1381 Patricia Medal, Relator, vs. Agassiz Federal Credit Union, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
By certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for unemployment misconduct. She argues that the employer failed to provide evidence that she frequently made mistakes or failed to perform her duties; that her conduct was at most unsatisfactory or the result of good-faith errors in judgment; and that she was discharged only after the board of directors was advised of the employer’s unethical conduct. We affirm.
2. A14-0778 Gloria Johnson, Relator, vs. Minneapolis Special School District #001, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, arguing that her conduct constituted ordinary negligence and was not a serious violation of the standards of behavior expected by her employer. The misconduct in this case was that the Relator, a school-bus driver, twice did not complete a required walk-through and left special-needs children on the bus after completing her route. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.
3.A14-1302 Jayne M. Eiden-Kellam, petitioner, Relator, vs. Mayo Clinic Health System – Fairmont, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Relator appeals the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was that Relator, a customer-service representative for Mayo clinic, illegally accessed confidential patient information. We affirm.
4. A14-0967 Margaret Acker, Relator, vs. Inter City Oil Co., Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
We affirm the determination of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for employment benefits because the record supports the ULJ’s finding that relator quit her employment. More specifically, the ULJ found that relator had quit because she faxed a blank sheet of paper to the employer saying “You can fill this out yourself and leave my name off[.] I am DONE[.]”
The ULJ found the employer's testimony that relator had quit more credible. The Court of Appeals did not find error in the ULJ’s credibility determinations. The ULJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. For all of these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's decision.
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