There were three unpublished opinions this week from the Minnesota Court of Appeals. All three are interesting cases, especially the third case. In the first case, the Relator quit her job due to stress and anxiety and challenges the ULJ’s determination that she is ineligible for unemployment because she quit her job for medical reasons. The second case involves a Relator who received unemployment benefits for a year, and then attempted to establish another benefit account, even though he had not lost a job while he was receiving benefits. The third case is odd and definitely worth a look because it involves an appeal by an employer of a determination by Unemployment Insurance Minnesota that a former employee is eligible to receive benefits. All three cases were affirmed.
1. A14-0057 Sondra Keeney, Relator, v. Midwest Special Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Sondra Keeney was employed by Midwest Special Services, Inc., until she quit due to stress and anxiety. An unemployment-law judge determined that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. On appeal, she argues that she is eligible because she had a serious illness that made it medically necessary to quit and because she quit for a good reason caused by her employer. Although there is a medical exception to the general rule that quitting employment results in ineligibility for unemployment benefits, the unemployment law judge found that Keeney did not prove that she had to quit for medical reasons by introducing evidence, such as a doctor's note. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the unemployment law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
2. A13-2221 Donald Bergs, Relator, v. Midwest Special Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Donald Bergs sought and received unemployment benefits from the department of employment and economic development after being terminated from his job. After the end of the benefit year applicable to his benefit account, Bergs tried to establish another benefit account. But the department invalidated his attempts to do so because Bergs had not experienced another loss of employment. The department also determined that the unemployment benefits Bergs received on his original benefit account must be reduced by an amount equal to 50 percent of his Social Security old-age benefits. In this petition for certiorari review, Bergs challenges the department’s invalidation of his attempts to establish another benefit account and the department’s reduction of his benefits. We affirm.
3. A14-0052 Tonya Johnson, Respondent, v. Asbestos Workers Union No. 34, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Asbestos Workers Union No. 34 (the Union) challenges the unemployment-law judge’s decision that respondent Tonya Johnson is eligible for unemployment benefits because she was not discharged for employment misconduct. The "misconduct" in this case was allegedly knowing that Johnson's supervisor had misappropriated Union funds to pay for personal services on Johnson's behalf -- a repairperson's examination of Johnson's air conditioning unit to determine why it was not working and an attorney in a criminal matter. The unemployment law judge found that Johnson did not know that Union funds had been misappropriated to pay either the air-conditioning bill (indeed, Johnson did not know that there was a bill) or her attorney.
The Union contends that the evidence does not support the factual findings and that the unemployment-law judge should have issued a subpoena and ordered an additional hearing. Because substantial evidence supports the findings and the unemployment-law judge acted within her discretion, 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.
1. A14-0057 Sondra Keeney, Relator, v. Midwest Special Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Sondra Keeney was employed by Midwest Special Services, Inc., until she quit due to stress and anxiety. An unemployment-law judge determined that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. On appeal, she argues that she is eligible because she had a serious illness that made it medically necessary to quit and because she quit for a good reason caused by her employer. Although there is a medical exception to the general rule that quitting employment results in ineligibility for unemployment benefits, the unemployment law judge found that Keeney did not prove that she had to quit for medical reasons by introducing evidence, such as a doctor's note. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the unemployment law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence.
2. A13-2221 Donald Bergs, Relator, v. Midwest Special Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Donald Bergs sought and received unemployment benefits from the department of employment and economic development after being terminated from his job. After the end of the benefit year applicable to his benefit account, Bergs tried to establish another benefit account. But the department invalidated his attempts to do so because Bergs had not experienced another loss of employment. The department also determined that the unemployment benefits Bergs received on his original benefit account must be reduced by an amount equal to 50 percent of his Social Security old-age benefits. In this petition for certiorari review, Bergs challenges the department’s invalidation of his attempts to establish another benefit account and the department’s reduction of his benefits. We affirm.
3. A14-0052 Tonya Johnson, Respondent, v. Asbestos Workers Union No. 34, Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Summary: Asbestos Workers Union No. 34 (the Union) challenges the unemployment-law judge’s decision that respondent Tonya Johnson is eligible for unemployment benefits because she was not discharged for employment misconduct. The "misconduct" in this case was allegedly knowing that Johnson's supervisor had misappropriated Union funds to pay for personal services on Johnson's behalf -- a repairperson's examination of Johnson's air conditioning unit to determine why it was not working and an attorney in a criminal matter. The unemployment law judge found that Johnson did not know that Union funds had been misappropriated to pay either the air-conditioning bill (indeed, Johnson did not know that there was a bill) or her attorney.
The Union contends that the evidence does not support the factual findings and that the unemployment-law judge should have issued a subpoena and ordered an additional hearing. Because substantial evidence supports the findings and the unemployment-law judge acted within her discretion, 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.
RSS Feed