This opinion will be unpublished and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
Hannon Security Services, Inc. (1991),
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed July 3, 2006
Hannon Security Services, Inc. (1991), 9036 Grand Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55420-3634 (respondent)
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Relator Wiley Stratton brings a certiorari appeal of the decision of the unemployment-law judge that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because relator quit his employment for a medical reason, but did not so inform his employer or request accommodation, relator does not satisfy the statutory exception, and we affirm.
employee who quits employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment
We review the decision
of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) to determine “if the substantial rights of
the [relator] may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences,
conclusion, or decision” were contrary to law or unsupported by substantial
The record reflects that relator was employed by respondent Hannon Security as a security officer from November 11, 2004, until he quit on January 14, 2005. Relator experienced difficulty with patrolling alone, at night, around the buildings and decided he could not continue the work out of concern that he could not handle an emergency if one were to arise. Because he was embarrassed about his condition and he thought it was personal, he did not tell the employer about it when he quit on January 14. Although relator began seeing a doctor about his condition while he was still employed by respondent, he was not diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder until May 2005. Since then, he has received disability payments.
The department initially determined that relator quit due to a serious illness, but the employer appealed. The employer stated it was unaware of the illness and that relator told his supervisor that he was quitting because he was moving out of state. Relator made it clear in his response to the appeal that he did not tell the employer about his condition nor did he think his problem with the employment was the employer’s fault. In addition, relator did not tell the employer why he quit. Because the facts are undisputed that relator did not know what his condition was at the time he quit, and the employer was not informed of a medical condition or given a chance to accommodate relator before relator quit, the unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator does not fall within the medical exception to disqualification is supported by substantial evidence.
After the ULJ issued the decision, relator requested reconsideration. For the first time on reconsideration, relator stated that the night supervisor treated him rudely and this rude treatment was the reason he initially cut back his hours and stopped working at one building. Relator argues that this treatment is enough to change the ULJ’s decision.
Under the new statutory provisions allowing requests for
reconsideration, the ULJ “shall not” consider any evidence that was not
submitted at the evidentiary hearing.
Even if the ULJ
could have considered the alleged bad treatment, however, unemployment law
still requires that the employee inform the employer of an adverse working
condition so that the employer has an opportunity to accommodate.
Relator also argues
that the ULJ stated that he “got paid 8 times the amount” he made. The language used by the ULJ, however, was
simply the statutory language regarding disqualification duration.