Here is a summary of recent decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court on unemployment benefits. This week, the Court of Appeals issued three unpublished decisions on unemployment benefits, and reversed the decision of the unemployment law judge in one of those decisions, The Minnesota Supreme Court, whose decisions for this week have not yet been issued, did not decide any cases involving unemployment benefits last week:
Minnesota Court of Appeals:
1. Tamara Nelson, Relator v. Donnelly Development, LLC and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1288. Filed May 19, 2014.
Summary and Outcome: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that, despite various problems and negative interactions with the new owner of the apartment building that she managed, she did not commit employment misconduct. We affirm.
2. Alan Sargent, Relator, vs. Manny Moe & Jack of California, Inc. and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1669. Filed May 19, 2014.
Summary and Outcome:
Relator Alan Sargent challenges an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct. Sargent argues that he did not engage in misconduct but instead committed an unintentional mistake. Sargent’s conduct was inadvertent and did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer. He is entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.
3. Derek Browen, Relator, vs. Thompson Construction of Princeton and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents. A13-1392. Filed May 19, 2014
Summary and Outcome:
Relator Derek Browen challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissing his request for reconsideration as untimely. Because Browen did not file his request within the 20-day period, the ULJ properly dismissed the appeal and we affirm.
Relator also challenges the ULJ’s determination that he refused an offer of suitable employment. DEED concedes that the ULJ erred in its determination on this issue. Browen did not accept reemployment due to his union activities. See Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(g)(3) (2012) (stating that “suitable employment” is not employment
that would require an applicant to resign from his or her labor organization). However, because we have affirmed the ULJ’s determination that Browen quit his employment and was not entitled to benefits in the first place, the suitable-employment issue is moot and we will not address it.
Minnesota Supreme Court:
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet issued its decisions for this week, and did not issue any decisions on unemployment benefits last week.
May 21, 2014 Update - the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue any opinions on unemployment benefits this week.
Minnesota Court of Appeals:
1. Tamara Nelson, Relator v. Donnelly Development, LLC and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1288. Filed May 19, 2014.
Summary and Outcome: In this certiorari appeal from an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct, relator argues that, despite various problems and negative interactions with the new owner of the apartment building that she managed, she did not commit employment misconduct. We affirm.
2. Alan Sargent, Relator, vs. Manny Moe & Jack of California, Inc. and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents, A13-1669. Filed May 19, 2014.
Summary and Outcome:
Relator Alan Sargent challenges an unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for employment misconduct. Sargent argues that he did not engage in misconduct but instead committed an unintentional mistake. Sargent’s conduct was inadvertent and did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer. He is entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.
3. Derek Browen, Relator, vs. Thompson Construction of Princeton and Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondents. A13-1392. Filed May 19, 2014
Summary and Outcome:
Relator Derek Browen challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissing his request for reconsideration as untimely. Because Browen did not file his request within the 20-day period, the ULJ properly dismissed the appeal and we affirm.
Relator also challenges the ULJ’s determination that he refused an offer of suitable employment. DEED concedes that the ULJ erred in its determination on this issue. Browen did not accept reemployment due to his union activities. See Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(g)(3) (2012) (stating that “suitable employment” is not employment
that would require an applicant to resign from his or her labor organization). However, because we have affirmed the ULJ’s determination that Browen quit his employment and was not entitled to benefits in the first place, the suitable-employment issue is moot and we will not address it.
Minnesota Supreme Court:
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not yet issued its decisions for this week, and did not issue any decisions on unemployment benefits last week.
May 21, 2014 Update - the Minnesota Supreme Court did not issue any opinions on unemployment benefits this week.
RSS Feed