This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Zale Delaware, Inc.,
Department of Employment
and Economic Development,
Filed April 25, 2006
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 1030305
Zale Delaware, Inc.,
Linda A. Holmes, Department
of Employment and Economic Development,
and decided by
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
D E C I S I O N
certiorari review, an appellate court reviews findings in the light most
favorable to the decision and will not reverse if record evidence reasonably
tends to sustain those findings. See Ress
current statutory scheme, the ULJ holds an evidentiary hearing and makes
findings of fact and a decision.
The first issue here involves review of the determination by the ULJ that the employer’s version that relator quit was more credible than relator’s version that she was fired. Relator testified first that the regional manager said that relator would be immediately terminated, but relator later testified that she was told she would be terminated in two weeks. Relator also testified that she quit only because she knew she would be discharged. In contrast, the regional manager testified that she advised relator that falsifying the merchandise counts was a serious issue but that no decision on termination had been made yet. The ULJ ruled the regional manager’s testimony described a “more consistent and believable chain of events” than relator’s testimony, and concluded that the regional manager’s testimony was more persuasive than relator’s testimony. The ULJ’s findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, and this court will not disturb his credibility determinations.
issue is whether the ULJ properly determined that relator quit based on these
facts. The statute defines “quit” and
(a) A quit from employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee’s.
(b) An employee who has been notified that the employee 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.
consider the ULJ’s decision that relator did not show good cause for
quitting. One who quits employment is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, unless the quit occurred
because of good reason caused by the employer.
relator raises complaints about her relationship with her manager and alleges
favoritism toward other employees, although in greater detail than she asserted
at the hearing. First, the record on
certiorari appeal consists of the papers filed, exhibits, and transcript, if
Relator raises several other issues. First, she notes that the ULJ who was scheduled to hear the case was unable to appear and that the substitute ULJ admitted that he did not have a chance to prepare. As the substitute ULJ indicated, however, this case is straightforward, involving primarily a credibility determination. In addition, there is no showing relator was prejudiced.
Finally, relator challenges another finding. She asserts that the regional manager was incorrect when she testified relator was falsifying the counts. Instead, relator was instructed to count the jewelry any way she wished as long as she did the job. The ULJ found that relator did not perform the required merchandise count. This finding is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous.
The decision of the ULJ that relator quit employment without good reason caused by the employer is affirmed.