This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.  480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).


Kristine K. Buer,


Presbyterian Family Foundation, Inc.,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Filed August 13, 1996
Amundson, Judge

Department of Economic Security
Agency File No. 7089 UC 05

Perry M. de Stefano, Western Minnesota Legal Services, 620 
Litchfield Avenue SW, Suite 101, Willmar, MN 56201 (for 

Nancy J. Carlson, Anderson & Burgett, 416 SW Sixth Street, P.O. 
Box 306, Willmar, MN 56201 (for Respondent)

Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 
North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent 
Commissioner of Economic Security)

	Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, 
Norton, Judge and Peterson, Judge.


	Relator Kristian Buer challenges the decision of the 
Commissioner's representative affirming the denial of her claim for 
reemployment insurance benefits.  She argues that she 
discontinued her employment with good cause attributable to the 
employer when she quit after she was demoted from a supervisory 
position to a non-supervisory position due to alleged inadequate 
job performance as a supervisor.  We affirm.


	Respondent Presbyterian Family Foundation, Inc. provides 
residential services for people with developmental disabilities.  
Relator Kristian Buer began working at one of respondent's 
facilities in 1976 as a resident counselor.  A resident counselor 
provides direct care to people with developmental disabilities.  In 
1990, Buer was promoted to the position of "key counselor," a 
supervisory position.  A key counselor supervises approximately 
twelve resident counselors.
	In 1995, Buer was demoted from the key counselor position 
to a resident counselor position "due to dissatisfaction with [her] 
job performance as a supervisor***."  She was to receive the same 
amount of pay as she did as a key counselor.  Two days after her 
demotion, Buer quit her job.
	She filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits, and 
the Department of Economic Security's claim representative denied 
Buer's claim because she voluntarily discontinued employment 
without good cause attributable to the employer.  The 
reemployment insurance judge and the Commissioner's 
representative affirmed the decision.  This appeal followed.


	A claimant is disqualified from receiving reemployment 
insurance benefits if she voluntarily terminates employment 
without good cause attributable to the employer.  Minn. Stat.  
268,09, subd. 1(a) (1994).  "Good cause" to quit has been defined 
as a reason that is "real, not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and 
reasonable, not whimsical; there must be some compulsion 
produced by extraneous and necessitous circumstances."  
Ferguson v. Department of Employment Serv., 311 Minn. 34, 44 
n.5, 247 N.W. 2d 895, 900 n.5 (1976).  The standard is 
"reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not 
to the supersensitive***." Id.
	The question of whether an employee voluntarily 
terminated employment with good cause attributable to the 
employer is a question of law that may be independently reviewed 
on appeal.  Wood v. Menard, Inc., 490 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn. 
App. 1002).
	As Buer properly notes, she was not demoted for 
misconduct.  Thus, the reasonableness of the employer's decision 
to demote her is not an issue.  See Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc., 528 
N.W.2d 268, 270 (Minn. App. 1995) (Unless the demotion was for 
misconduct, "the legitimacy of the employee's reassignment is not 
relevant; an employee may have good cause to quit even if the 
employer did not act unreasonably or unfairly in making a 
substantial change").		
	Buer argues that the Commissioner's representative erred in 
basing the decision on Dachel and in focusing some of the findings 
on the reasonableness of the demotion from the employer's 
perspective.  Buer claims that the Commissioner's representative 
should have based the decision on this court's more recent decision 
in Cook v. Playworks, 541 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. App. 1996), and 
focused on the reasonableness of the decision from the employee's 
perspective.  We agree.
	In Cook, this court remanded the case for a determination of 
the reasonableness of the employee's decision considering "all 
relevant circumstances" including

	loss of wages, the extent of the change of job duties, the 
reasonable career expectancies of the employee because of 
tenure with this or other employers, and the employee's 
remaining chances for advancement after the demotion.
Id. at 369.
	Thus, under Cook, the following analysis applies to the 
facts of this case:
Loss of Wages--Buer was paid the same amount as a resident 
counselor as she was paid as a key counselor.  She argues, 
however, that she would lose future raises because she had already 
reached the top of the resident counselor pay scale.
Extent of Change of Duties--Buer's job changed from a 
supervisory position to a non-supervisory position.
Reasonable Career Expectations--Buer claims she had a 
reasonable expectation of continuing as a key counselor.
Chances for Advancement After Demotion--Buer claims that 
her future chances for advancement after the demotion were 
"practically non-existent."  However, she also notes that "[t]he 
only promotion possibility from resident counselor is to key 
	Even when the reasonableness of the demotion from the 
employer's perspective is not taken into account, Buer did not have 
good cause to quit.  She did not lose any money because of the 
change--as compared to the employees in Dachel and Cook whose 
wages were reduced 10 to 36%.  Her  duties changed a lot, but that 
is to be expected in a change from a supervisory to a non-
supervisory position.  The subject matter of the work was still the 
same.  Buer claims that she had a reasonable expectation of 
continuing as a key counselor, but  it is not reasonable for an 
employee to expect to continue as a supervisor if the employee is 
not doing a good job of supervision.  As Buer concedes, the key 
counselor position is the "top of the ladder."  She does not indicate 
that her demotion would have prevented her from "climbing one 
more rung."  Thus, analyzing the facts under Cook rather than 
Dachel, the determination that Buer did not have good cause to 
quit is proper.