Here is this week's installment of summaries of decisions on unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. All decisions were issued on May 27, 2014. Please note that Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C. is not affiliated in any way with
Unemployment Insurance Minnesota.
1. Douglas A. Peterson, Relator, vs. U.S. Federal Employees, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1354.
Summary: This certiorari appeal is from the decision of an unemployment-law judge that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment-compensation benefits because he was discharged from his employment for committing employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was not renewing a commercial driver's license ("CDL") when it was required by the applicant's job and the employer had warned the applicant to renew the CDL. Affirmed.
2. Kathy Clark, Relator, vs. House of Charity, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1452.
Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer. The employer had been served with a garnishment summons and complaint, and refused Relator's request to delay garnishing her wages. Affirmed.
3. Robin Berry, Relator, vs. City of Minneapolis Public Housing, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Court File No. A13-1454.
Summary: Relator Robin Berry challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) she quit her employment due to good reason caused by the employer and (2) she had a serious illness or injury that made quitting medically necessary. Affirmed.
4. Jeremy Thomsen, Relator, vs. Metes & Bounds Management Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1874.
Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision dismissing relator’s request for reconsideration as untimely, relator argues that we should consider his claims on the merits because he was unable to timely file his request for reconsideration due to problems accessing the Internet. Affirmed.
5. Julie A. Bennett, Relator, vs. Castle Kitchen Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Court File No. A13-1671.
Summary: Relator contests the unemployment-law judge’s decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the unemployment-law judge properly concluded that Bennett was not actively seeking suitable employment during the period in question, 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.
Unemployment Insurance Minnesota.
1. Douglas A. Peterson, Relator, vs. U.S. Federal Employees, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1354.
Summary: This certiorari appeal is from the decision of an unemployment-law judge that relator is ineligible to receive unemployment-compensation benefits because he was discharged from his employment for committing employment misconduct. The misconduct in this case was not renewing a commercial driver's license ("CDL") when it was required by the applicant's job and the employer had warned the applicant to renew the CDL. Affirmed.
2. Kathy Clark, Relator, vs. House of Charity, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1452.
Summary: Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit employment without a good reason caused by the employer. The employer had been served with a garnishment summons and complaint, and refused Relator's request to delay garnishing her wages. Affirmed.
3. Robin Berry, Relator, vs. City of Minneapolis Public Housing, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Court File No. A13-1454.
Summary: Relator Robin Berry challenges the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) she quit her employment due to good reason caused by the employer and (2) she had a serious illness or injury that made quitting medically necessary. Affirmed.
4. Jeremy Thomsen, Relator, vs. Metes & Bounds Management Company (Corp.), Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent, Court File No. A13-1874.
Summary: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision dismissing relator’s request for reconsideration as untimely, relator argues that we should consider his claims on the merits because he was unable to timely file his request for reconsideration due to problems accessing the Internet. Affirmed.
5. Julie A. Bennett, Relator, vs. Castle Kitchen Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Court File No. A13-1671.
Summary: Relator contests the unemployment-law judge’s decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Because the unemployment-law judge properly concluded that Bennett was not actively seeking suitable employment during the period in question, 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