This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).






Carolyn Kelly,


HCA Atlanta Shared SVC,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,


Filed September 6, 2005


Stoneburner, Judge


Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 1699404


Carolyn Kelly, 323 Summer Terrace Lane, Atlanta, GA 30342 (pro se relator)


HCA Atlanta Shared SVC, 5707 Peachtree Parkway, Norcross, GA 30092 (respondent employer)


Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Department)


            Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Stoneburner, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D  O P I N I O N




            In this certiorari appeal from the decision of a senior unemployment review judge, relator Carolyn Kelly challenges the finding that she had not secured employment in a new position and only had a conditional offer of employment at the time she quit her job with respondent-employer.  Because the finding is reasonably supported by the record, we affirm.



Relator began working for respondent-employer HCA Atlanta Shared SVC (HCA) on August 30, 2004.  On the morning of her second day of work at HCA, relator interviewed for a position with Northside Hospital (Northside).  Relator testified that she was not offered a job during the interview.  About a week later, Northside called, offering employment, contingent on relator passing a drug test, physical examination, and typing test.  Relator testified that she knew she would not have the job if she did not pass the tests. 

The day after receiving the call from Northside, but before taking any required pre-employment tests, relator informed HCA that she intended to quit her job as of September 20, 2004.  Relator was then notified that September 14 would be her last day because she was still in training and HCA did not wish to continue training an employee who was leaving.

After relator passed the physical and the drug test, but before her scheduled typing test and before September 20, 2004, Northside withdrew the offer of employment.  Relator attempted to regain employment with HCA but was told that her job there had been filled. 

Relator applied for unemployment and was disqualified by a department determination.  Relator appealed.  After a telephone hearing, the ULJ found that relator quit her job with HCA without a good reason caused by her employer and that the “better work” exception to the disqualification set forth in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(2) (2004), did not apply because relator quit HCA before she had a firm offer from Northside.  

The senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) declined, under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2a (a) (2004), to hold additional proceedings, and adopted the findings and decision by the ULJ as the final findings and decision of the department.  In a paragraph entitled “Memorandum,” the SURJ stated: “We note the law specifically provides that an exception to disqualification for quitting is available when an applicant quits to ‘accept other covered employment.’  A conditional offer is not sufficient to meet that statutory requirement.” 



On certiorari review, this court will sustain the SURJ’s findings of fact if there is evidence in the record that reasonably supports them.  White v. Metro. Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983).  We review the findings in the light most favorable to the SURJ’s decision.  Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).

Relator does not challenge the finding that she quit without good cause attributable to her employer or the conclusion that the statutory exception to disqualification for quitting does not apply to a conditional job offer.  Relator argues that she was never told that the offer from Northside was contingent or conditional “especially since [she] was given a start date of Sept. 22, 2004.”  But this argument is inconsistent with relator’s testimony.  The finding that the offer was conditional and that relator quit before securing firm employment is supported by her testimony that she was told that she needed to take a drug test, typing test, and have a physical, and she knew she would not have the job until those requirements were fulfilled.  The record is also clear that relator quit her job with HCA before fulfilling these requirements.  Therefore, the record supports the ULJ’s finding, as adopted by the SURJ, that relator did not have a firm offer of new employment to accept when she quit her employment at HCA, as required to meet the statutory exception to disqualification for quitting.