Briefs filed in John Stassen, Relator, vs. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Minnesota State Law Library

Ask a Law Librarian

Home Research Legal Topics Skills Center Services About Us

Minnesota Appellate Court Issues in Briefs

Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.

CASE NAME: John Stassen, Relator, vs. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
        Read the opinion in this case at A11-954
        CITATION: 814 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)

Legal Issues in RELATOR'S INFORMAL BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
  • A. Did the ULJ who conducted the hearing prejudice Relator's substantial rights by: i.) Assuming and exercising authority or jurisdiction in excess of the Department's statutory authority or jurisdiction? ii.) Making her Findings and Decision upon unlawful procedure? iii.) Making her Findings and Decision unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted? iv.) Making her Findings and Decision arbitrarily or capriciously? (REAPP 19 Page 44) (Minnesota Statutes 268.105 Subd. 7(d) 2, 3, 5, & 6)
  • B. Did the ULJ err in failing to consider the preponderance of the evidence in the record, followed by a rationalization of her mistaken predetermination that the e-mail constituted a "quit" or a resignation, by "cherry picking" several phrases and clauses, OUT OF CONTEXT, from the e-mail, rather than considering the entirety of the missive and then making a determination as to its intent?
  • C. Did the ULJ err in her decision to entertain an objection by LMTL to Relator's Determination of Eligibility to receive unemployment compensation benefits when LMTL's appeal was filed approximately six (6) months after an ill fated mailing?
  • D. Did the ULJ err in her determination that LMTL's time to file an objection had never begun to run, thereby allowing the company an approximate five (5) month extension to file its objection and waiving DEED's 30 day rule?
  • E. Did the ULJ err in her determination that the mailing having been sent to the Las Vegas address was DEED's fault, not LMTL's, regardless of the facts that: i.) Said address was the last known address DEED had in its data base for LMTL at the time of the mailing; and, ii.) Lynda Kuhn (hereinafter Kuhn), LMTL's HR Director, indicated which entity was at fault for the usage of the stale address, and LMTL's non-receipt of the mailing, with TWO admissions as to a lack of knowledge and/or awareness of-what was required of LMTL in order to effect a change of address in DEED's data base and LMTL's consequent failure to fully and procedurally properly execute change of address forms? (REAPP 8) and (REAPP 18)
  • F. Did the ULJ err in assuming and exercising jurisdiction in the matter in light of the fact that the filing of LMTL's appeal was untimely, that the determination, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, clearly stated that it would be final unless an appeal was filed within 20 calendar days from the date of mailing, that The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the statutory time period for appeal is absolute, regardless of any asserted mitigating circumstances, that it was not filed within the time period required by law, and that the ULJ has no legal authority to hear and consider the appeal, the Determination of Eligibility having become final by operation of law? (REAPP 7)
  • G. Did the ULJ err in failing to assist Relator in the hearing?
  • Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
  • Under the law, an individual who quits employment is generally ineligible for unemployment benefits. An employee is considered to have quit employment when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee's. John Stassen was a collections account manager at Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, and felt that his supervisors were no longer supporting him. One day wrote an email to his employer in which he offered to continue working while he transitioned out of Lone Mountain, wished them well, and said it had been a real trip. His employer accepted his resignation immediately. Did Stassen quit his employment? If so, does any exception to ineligibility apply? Unemployment Law Judge Katrina Gulstad found Stassen quit his employment, and was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he did not fall under any exception to ineligibility. On reconsideration, ULJ Kaczorek affirmed.

  • Minnesota State Law Library: Issues in Briefs

    Please send suggestions to the Web Manager.