This opinion will be unpublished and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
Karen L. Humenik,
Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed July 11, 2006
File No. 1420905
Karen I. Humenik,
Mission Farms Nursing
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 Karen Humenik challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving benefits because she quit her employment without a good reason caused by the employer. We affirm.
Relator Karen Humenik worked as a registered nurse at respondent Mission Farms Nursing Home, Inc. from June 2003 until August 29, 2005. She argues that, over an eight-month period, the new director of nursing, Heidi Larsen, drove her to quit.
Humenik identified five
separate incidents leading to the termination of her employment. The first involved Humenik’s incident report
about a patient leaving the building.
Humenik complains that Larsen should not have followed up on the report
by phoning her at home or by asking her to complete a questionnaire. In the second incident, Humenik wrote a
report on a patient’s coffee burn, but she complains that Larsen should not
have sent the report to management. When
a drug card appeared to be missing in the third incident, Larsen determined
that most of the nursing staff was not properly monitoring drugs, so she
re-instructed and warned all of them.
Some time later, the fourth incident involved some medications that were
mistakenly reported missing. Humenik
complains that she got a phone call at home about this incident. It was later resolved, but no one phoned her
to tell her it had been resolved. The
fifth and final incident was the August 29, 2005 phone conversation,
culminating in the termination of
Humenik’s employment. Humenik also suggests that the nursing home was inappropriately encouraging patients to drink alcohol.
Humenik applied for unemployment benefits, but the department determined that she was disqualified because she quit her employment without good reason caused by her employer. The unemployment-law judge (ULJ) made findings and also concluded that Humenik quit without good reason. On Humenik’s request for reconsideration, the ULJ affirmed. Humenik now appeals the ULJ’s decision.
This court may reverse or
modify the decision of a ULJ if the substantial rights of the petitioner may
have been prejudiced because the findings, conclusion, or decision are
erroneous under the law or unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the
An applicant who quit
employment is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the
applicant falls within a statutory exception.
One exception is a quit because of a “good reason caused by the
The ULJ determined that Humenik quit her employment. Humenik does not contest this determination on appeal. The ULJ’s determination was based on findings supported by the record. Larsen unambiguously testified that Humenik quit during their August 29 phone conversation, and this testimony was consistent with the chain of events and corroborated in part by Boder’s testimony.
Humenik argues that her quit was for “good reason” caused by the employer. Our review of the record indicates that the five incidents leading to relator’s termination reflect tight management, but not unlawful harassment, discrimination, or unreasonable conduct on the part of the employer. Larsen explained her conduct, and Boder supported her actions. Boder explained that the nursing home must investigate and report incidents. There was no showing that Larsen’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Cumulatively the incidents do not rise to the level of an egregious, hostile working condition caused by the employer that “would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit.”
Humenik did not quit for good reason caused by her employer as set out in the statute.