Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
GFI America, Inc.,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed June 2, 1998
Department of Economic Security
File No. 6597 UC 97
Peter B. Knapp, Kristi L. Angus, Certified Student Attorney, William Mitchell Law Clinic, 875 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for relator)
Melissa A. Arndt, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., 3000 Dain Bosworth Plaza, 60 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent GFI)
Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent commissioner)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Holtan, Judge.**
Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
Relator Rush Tucker challenges a decision by a representative of the respondent Commissioner of Economic Security disqualifying him from receiving reemployment insurance benefits after he voluntarily quit his job with respondent GFI America, Inc. Because the evidence reasonably supports the decision of the commissioner's representative that relator quit his job without good cause attributable to his employer and that the serious illness exception does not apply to this case, we affirm. See White v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983) (findings must "be viewed in the light most favorable to the decision, and if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain [those findings], they will not be disturbed").
he quit as a result of a serious illness and he made reasonable efforts to retain his employment. Id., subd. 1(c)(2).
Relator, who had undergone surgery following a non-work related injury, claimed that he quit his job because he had medical restrictions that prohibited him from physically performing the job. However, the employer presented the following evidence to the contrary: (1) relator never provided the employer with any medical information to indicate that he had a 15 pound lifting restriction, as he claimed; (2) relator's job required him to lift only empty cardboard boxes and cans weighing from a few ounces to a few pounds, and an electronic lift was available; (3) relator failed to ask the employer's human resources manager, who had granted relator's requests for job changes in the past, for another position or for a leave of absence; (4) the human resources manager testified that had relator made such a request, he would have been able to accommodate him; and (5) relator merely asked his supervisor if he could switch jobs with another worker because he did not like his assigned job. Given this evidence, the commissioner's representative could reasonably conclude that relator failed to prove that he had a serious illness or that he made reasonable efforts to retain employment. See Minchew v. Minnesota Odd Fellows Home, 429 N.W.2d 702, 703 (Minn. App. 1988) (burden on employee to prove serious illness exception applies).
The evidence also fails to show that relator had good cause to quit. Relator failed to notify the employer either that he could not physically perform his assigned job or his reasons for quitting, other than to state dissatisfaction with his assigned job. Relator's dissatisfaction with his working conditions does not constitute good cause to quit. See, e.g., Trego v. Hennepin County Family Day Care Ass'n, 409 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn. App. 1987).
The decision of the commissioner's representative is affirmed.