Here is this week's summary of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Decisions that were released this week include one appeal by an employer and two cases that were reversed and remanded (sent back to the department that made the decision) for further proceedings. All decisions were released on Monday, June 16, 2014.
1. A13-1762 Shatante Boyd, Respondent, vs. Atterro, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Atterro Inc. employed Shatante Boyd until her latest temporary assignment ended. Boyd applied for unemployment benefits. The department deemed Boyd ineligible. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) held that Boyd was eligible for benefits, finding that although she failed to ask Atterro to give her a new assignment, she had a good reason for not doing so. A different ULJ reconsidered that decision and determined that Boyd is eligible not because she had good reason for failing to ask for a new assignment but because she had in fact requested a new assignment.
Because the evidence does not support the second ULJ’s finding that Boyd affirmatively requested a new assignment, we reverse. But because the final decision supersedes the previous ULJ’s decision and includes no finding as to whether Boyd had a good reason for not making the request, we remand for the necessary findings.
2. A13-1832, Kolo Howard, Relator, vs. Select Senior Living, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator, a health aide at a senior living facility, is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct after failing to timely respond to residents’ requests for medical assistance, relator argues that (1) the ULJ failed to provide her with a fair hearing; (2) her employer fabricated claims that she failed to perform her job duties; and (3) the residents rejected her care because of her ethnicity. Because the ULJ failed to assist relator, a pro se party, in obtaining material evidence allegedly favorable to her, we reverse and remand.
3. A13-1674 Liban Mohamed, Relator, vs. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct -- excessive absenteeism. We affirm.
If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefiits, 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. A13-1762 Shatante Boyd, Respondent, vs. Atterro, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Atterro Inc. employed Shatante Boyd until her latest temporary assignment ended. Boyd applied for unemployment benefits. The department deemed Boyd ineligible. An unemployment law judge (ULJ) held that Boyd was eligible for benefits, finding that although she failed to ask Atterro to give her a new assignment, she had a good reason for not doing so. A different ULJ reconsidered that decision and determined that Boyd is eligible not because she had good reason for failing to ask for a new assignment but because she had in fact requested a new assignment.
Because the evidence does not support the second ULJ’s finding that Boyd affirmatively requested a new assignment, we reverse. But because the final decision supersedes the previous ULJ’s decision and includes no finding as to whether Boyd had a good reason for not making the request, we remand for the necessary findings.
2. A13-1832, Kolo Howard, Relator, vs. Select Senior Living, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: In this certiorari appeal from the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator, a health aide at a senior living facility, is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct after failing to timely respond to residents’ requests for medical assistance, relator argues that (1) the ULJ failed to provide her with a fair hearing; (2) her employer fabricated claims that she failed to perform her job duties; and (3) the residents rejected her care because of her ethnicity. Because the ULJ failed to assist relator, a pro se party, in obtaining material evidence allegedly favorable to her, we reverse and remand.
3. A13-1674 Liban Mohamed, Relator, vs. Jennie-O Turkey Store, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct -- excessive absenteeism. We affirm.
If you are denied unemployment benefits, or are an employer who wants to challenge a former employee's eligibility for benefiits, 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