This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).







Robert J. Donovan,





Prometric, Inc.,



Commissioner of Economic Security,




Filed December 17, 2002

Klaphake, Judge


Department of Economic Security

File No. 12899-01



Robert J. Donovan, 10650 Hampshire Avenue, Apartment 105, Bloomington, MN  55438 (pro se relator)


Prometric, Inc., Bloomington LOC, 1000 Lancaster Street, Baltimore, MD 55103 (respondent employer)


Linda Holmes, Department of Economic Security, 390 N. Robert Street, St. Paul, MN  55101 (for respondent commissioner)


            Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            In this unemployment benefits case, the commissioner’s representative determined that relator Robert J. Donovan was disqualified from receiving benefits after he quit his employment with respondent Prometric, Inc.  Because at the time relator sent an e-mail to his supervisor in which he “resigned” “effective immediately,” he had not yet been discharged and was still employed, we affirm the decision of the commissioner’s representative that relator quit his employment.


            An employee who quits a job is generally not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.  Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (Supp. 2001).  “A quit * * * occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee’s.”  Id., subd. 2(a) (Supp. 2001).  Moreover, “[a]n employee who has been notified that [he or she] will be discharged in the future, who chooses to end the employment while employment in any capacity is still available, shall be considered to have quit the employment.”  Id., subd. 2(b).

            Here, the commissioner’s representative found, based on largely undisputed evidence, that (1) the employee was on a performance improvement plan and had been informed that he would be discharged if he failed to meet the appropriate standards for a given week; (2) on Friday, September 14, 2001, the employee determined that he would not meet the standards for that week; (3) on Monday, September 17, 2001, at 1:15 a.m., the employee sent an e-mail to his supervisor resigning from his employment “effective immediately”; and (4) although the employee believed that he would be terminated later that day as a result of his failure to meet the performance standards for the preceding week, he had not yet discussed the matter with his employer and had not been terminated at the time he submitted his resignation.

            Relator argues that his employer effectively terminated him prior to his e-mail resignation and that his resignation was not his decision but was offered due to his employer’s threats of termination.  This court has rejected similar arguments in the past.  See, e.g., Bongiovanni v. Vanlor Invs., 370 N.W.2d 697, 698-99 (Minn. App. 1985) (quit occurs when employee chooses to leave rather than await official determination of her status); Seacrist v. City of Cottage Grove, 344 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn. App. 1984) (employee who quits to avoid disciplinary proceedings and protect his employment record is disqualified from receiving benefits); Ramirez v. Metro Waste Control Comm’n, 340 N.W.2d 355, 357-58 (Minn. App. 1983) (employee voluntarily terminates employment when he chooses to resign to protect his work record from reflecting a discharge).  Because the employee here made the decision to end his employment before the employer took any action, we affirm the decision of the commissioner’s representative that the employee quit his employment.