This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
EE-Jay Motor Transport, Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed March 28, 2006
EE-Jay Motor Transport, Inc., ATTN Tom Imlay, 1501 Lincoln Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62204-1041 (respondent)
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Relator challenges the senior unemployment review judge’s determinations that he was not discharged but rather voluntarily quit his employment and that he did not have a good reason caused by his employer for quitting. Because these determinations are reasonably supported in the record, we affirm.
Relator Tommie Davis was employed by respondent EE-Jay Motor Transport Inc. from November 2003 until October 2004. After a data-processing error at the payroll service respondent employed resulted in delaying relator’s pay increase, he chose to be paid with paper checks mailed to him instead of by direct deposit. Friday was payday; relator generally received his check on Saturday or Monday.
Although respondent’s records indicated that the check to pay relator for the pay period ending on Friday, October 1, was mailed on Wednesday, September 29, on Monday, October 4, 2004, relator told respondent he had not received the check. He was asked to wait a few days. On Wednesday, October 6, when relator still had not received the check, respondent issued a stop payment on it and planned to mail relator another check. On Thursday, October 7, when respondent was waiting for confirmation of the stop payment in order to issue a new check, relator became upset. Respondent offered to send the new check by Federal Express so relator would have it on Friday, October 8. Relator said that this was not good enough, that he had lost $85 as a result of not having the check on time, and that he would not work until the problem was solved. After relator said he would not work, he was asked to turn in his keys and his company gas card. He never returned to work. He did receive the missing check.
Relator applied for unemployment benefits on the ground that he had quit for a good reason caused by his employer. A department adjudicator determined that relator was not entitled to benefits because he had quit his employment without a good reason caused by his employer. Relator appealed and, during the telephone hearing, argued both that he had been discharged and that, if he quit, he had a good reason caused by his employer. After de novo review, an unemployment law judge (ULJ) stated the issue was “Whether the applicant quit or was discharged,” concluded that “[Relator] made the decision to end the employment at the time his employment ended,” and decided that “[Relator] quit his employment because of a good reason caused by [respondent].” Respondent appealed, and, following de novo review, a senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) concluded that relator quit because he testified that he told respondent he “would not work until his paycheck problem was straightened out” and that “the average reasonable worker would [not] quit work and join the ranks of the unemployed under similar circumstances.” Relator challenges that determination.
D E C I S I O N
certiorari appeal, relator argues only that he was discharged; he does not
challenge the determination that he did not have a good reason to quit caused
by his employer and has therefore arguably waived that issue. See
Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (
1. Quit or Discharge
an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of
fact.” Midland Elec., Inc. v. Johnson, 372 N.W.2d 810, 812 (
“A quit from
employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the
employment ended, the employee’s.”
2. Quit for good reason caused by the employer
determination that an employee quit without a good reason caused by the
employer is a legal conclusion, but it must be based on findings that have the
requisite evidentiary support. See Zepp v. Arthur Treacher Fish &
Chips, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 (
good reason for quitting caused by the employer is a reason that is directly
related to the employment and within the employer’s sphere of responsibility;
that is adverse to the employee; and that would compel an average, reasonable
worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in employment.