skip to content
Primary navigation

Unemployment Cases

Minnesota Unemployment Cases

The cases provided on this page are for illustrative purposes and are meant as a beginning point for research. Thorough research should include use of a citator, such as Shepard's (Lexis) or Keycite (Westlaw). The cases on this page were selected from the Opinion Archive, and therefore, do not date before 1996. Links to briefs are included when available. Online briefs date from 2005 and do not include briefs from unpublished cases.

For links to statutes and other information, including information on how to appeal, see Legal Topics: Unemployment Insurance.

Cases Topics: 

Benefit Calculations/Reductions
Better Job Exception
Due Process
Eligibility
Employment
Equal Protection
Equity
Evidentiary Issues and Standards
Failure to Seek Employment
Good Cause to Quit
Independent Contractor
Medical Necessity Exception
Mental Illness or Impairment
Misconduct
Procedural Issues
Transportation
Voluntary Quit

Benefit Calculations/Reductions

Engfer v. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Inc., A13-0872, 844 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014) 
"The preemption provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1144(a) (2012), applies to preempt the provision in the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. 268.035, subd. 29(a)(12) (2012), that "[t]he plan must provide supplemental payments only for those weeks the applicant has been paid regular, extended, or additional unemployment benefits" in order for the supplemental benefits to be exempt from the definition of "wages" contained in Minn. Stat. 268.035, subd. 29(a) (2012)." Briefs.

van de Werken vs. Bell & Howell, LLC, A12-2194, 834 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
"When an applicant for unemployment benefits receives severance pay, it is error to apply severance-pay ineligibility to the period immediately following the applicant's last day of employment if the applicant was not then receiving severance pay."
Briefs.

Hasledalen vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A11-1013, 811 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"When a person applies for and receives unemployment benefits and subsequently applies for and receives Social Security old age benefits, the unemployment benefits must be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of the Social Security benefit calculated on a weekly basis."
Briefs.

Peterson vs. Northeast Bank - Minneapolis, A11-0092, 805 N.W.2d 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"When a relator receives a settlement payment in an employment discrimination dispute that compensates relator for wages lost as a result of an allegedly wrongful discharge, the payment is for back pay under Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 3 (2010), and must be deducted from the benefits that relator has already received under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 6(a) (2010)."
Briefs.

Meder vs. Rapid Sports Center Inc., A09-0219, 773 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
"When a recipient of unemployment benefits is paid a sales commission that was not earned until after the recipient's discharge from employment, Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 5 (2008), requires that these earnings affect the amount of the benefit for the week in which they are received."
Briefs.

Better Job Exception

Sykes vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc., A10-0088, 789 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"When deciding whether an applicant for unemployment benefits quit her job to accept a different one with "substantially better terms and conditions of employment" under the better-job exception defined in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (Supp. 2009), the former employer's agreement to continue to provide the former employee with health-insurance coverage is not a factor."
Briefs.

Grunow vs. Walser Automotive Group LLC, A09-1338, 779 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"In determining whether an employee quit a position in order to accept other employment with substantially better terms and conditions under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(2) (2008), an objective comparison is to be made between the two positions' terms and conditions without regard to which position may be more suitable to the personal and subjective needs of the employee."
Briefs.

Due Process

Godbout vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A12-1283, 827 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
"To satisfy the constitutional right to due process, a determination of overpayment of unemployment-insurance benefits by fraud must be preceded by clear notice to the recipient of the potential consequences of failing to maintain a current mailing address with the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) after the receipt of benefits. Absent such notice, the appeal period to challenge a determination of overpayment by fraud does not begin to run until the subject of the determination receives actual notice of the determination."
Briefs.

Eligibility

Rubin v. Winona State University, A13-0871,, 842 N.W.2d 469 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). 
Relator was denied unemployment benefits, due to the determination that his employment was not covered by the unemployment statute. The Court reversed and determined that "[b]ased on the position description effective after Rubin's reassignment from dean to Senior Research Associate, the ULJ erred in concluding that Rubin was employed in a major policy-making or advisory position under Minn. Stat. 268.035, subd. 20(15). From May 29, 2012, to the end of his employment, Rubin performed services in covered employment and is eligible for unemployment benefits."
Briefs

Lewis vs. West Side Community Health Services, Inc., A10-2014, 802 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"An individual employed by an educational-service agency that contracted to provide services to an educational institution is ineligible to receive unemployment 2 benefits during time not worked between academic years or terms when the individual reasonably anticipates returning to the employment."
Briefs.

Bergen vs. Sonnie of St. Paul, Inc., A10-1498, 799 N.W.2d 234 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"A corporate officer-employee's ownership of more than 25% of a limited-liability company (LLC), when that LLC owns more than 25% of the corporation, is dispositive of the determination as to whether the corporate officer's employment is noncovered for the purpose of establishing eligibility for unemployment-compensation benefits."
Briefs.

Voge vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A10-0496, 794 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"An individual whose state unemployment benefit year expired before the July 22, 2010 enactment of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-205, § 3(a), 124 Stat. 2236, is not entitled to continue receiving federal extended unemployment benefit payments if the individual became eligible for a new state unemployment benefit account, even if the individual is unable to collect from the new state unemployment benefit account because the unemployment benefit amount has been recalculated downward."
Briefs.

Irvine vs. St. John's Lutheran Church of Mound, A09-1155, 779 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"1. The commissioner of the department of employment and economic development is not required to pay unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1 (2008), to an applicant who was employed by a tax-exempt church in "noncovered employment" under Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 20(7) (2008), because noncovered employment cannot be used to establish an unemployment-benefit account under Minn. Stat. § 268.07 (2008), unless the church elects to have the employment deemed "covered employment" and the commissioner approves the election under Minn. Stat. § 268.042, subd. 3(a) (2008). 2. Unemployment benefits may not be allowed for equitable reasons under Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2008)."
Briefs.

McNeilly vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A09-0895, 778 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"A seasonal employee who is laid off for lack of work must meet the statutory requirements outlined in Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1 (2008), in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits. This includes the requirement that the applicant be actively seeking employment during the off-season when he maintains a benefit account with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development."
Briefs.

Soderquist vs. Universal Services Telecom Tech Inc., A09-202, 774 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
"Under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 9 (2008), a petitioner who is the parent of an individual who owns the business in which the petitioner is employed and who has not received the minimum amount of pay required by statute in each of the 16 quarters preceding the petitioner's discharge is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits."
Briefs.

Bangtson vs. Allina Medical Group (Corp), A08-1587, 766 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
"1. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 (2008) for purposes of determining eligibility for unemployment benefits, a notice of future discharge is not a discharge when employment in any capacity is available to the employee who receives the notice. 2. An employee who is discharged for committing employee misconduct after receiving a notice of future discharge but before the discharge is scheduled to occur is ineligible for unemployment benefits."
Briefs.

Abdi vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A07-0945, 749 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"An applicant for extended trade readjustment allowances (TRA) benefits need not be engaged in full-time remedial training in order to be eligible for extended TRA benefits."
Briefs.

Carlson vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A07-0028, 747 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"Under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 2(3) (2006), an applicant who is incarcerated or performing court-ordered community service is not eligible for unemployment benefits. An applicant who is serving a statutory minimum sentence of "one year of incarceration" under Minn. Stat. § 169A.275, subd. 4 (2006), after a fifth conviction for alcohol-related driving offenses, is "incarcerated" and not eligible for unemployment benefits while serving time (a) in a local correctional facility and (b) under house arrest and subject to electronic home monitoring, even if the applicant is eligible for work-release privileges."
Briefs.

Lamah vs. Doherty Employment Group, Inc., A06-1680, 737 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"A person performing 32 or more hours a week of service in employment, covered employment, noncovered employment, self-employment, or volunteer work is presumptively employed full time for purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits. This presumption may be rebutted."
Briefs.

Scheeler vs. Sartell Water Controls, Inc., A06-0715, 730 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"1. Under Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 13a(a) (2004), an employee who chooses not to perform work available with the employer for a period of time is not eligible for unemployment benefits during that time. 2. Minn. Stat. 268.069, subd. 2 (2004), voids an employer's agreement that an employee who chooses not to perform work available with the employer for a period of time will be eligible for unemployment benefits during that time."
Briefs.

Garcia vs. Alstom Signaling Inc., A06-660, 729 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"An individual who does not file for, receive, or have any entitlement to severance pay while collecting unemployment benefits is eligible to receive unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 3 (Supp. 2005)."
Briefs.

Nelson vs. Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, A04-1930, 698 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
"The weeks of a claimant's lockout from employment do not count toward the 26 weeks of work earning at least $30 per week required before the qualifying separation date to receive trade readjustment allowance benefits under 19 U.S.C. 2291 (2002)."

Huston vs. Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, A03-0175, 672 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 4(c) (2002), which provides that any person who files for or receives Social Security disability benefits is ineligible for unemployment compensation, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and is invalid as applied to persons who are available to work but are classified as disabled for Social Security purposes."

Roloff vs. Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development, C1-02-2204, 668 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"An applicant for primary social security disability benefits is not eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits."

Erb vs. Commissioner of Economic Security, C4-99-967, 601 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)
"The voluntary termination of self-employment by the owner of a business disqualifies the owner from eligibility for reemployment insurance benefits."

Employment

Continental Hydraulics Incorporation v. Department of Employment and Economic Development ,832 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
A portion of a predecessor employer's experience-rating history is transferred to a successor employer if (1) the successor employer acquires a portion, but not all, of the predecessor employer's organization, business, or workforce and (2) there is, at the time of the acquisition, substantially common management or control between the employers.
Briefs.

Wiley vs. Dolphin Staffing - Dolphin Clerical Group, A12-0383, 825 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"Under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(3) (2010), an employee who gives notice of quitting to an employer in advance of separating from employment is deemed to have quit at the time she provides notice of quitting."
Briefs.

Builders Commonwealth, Inc. vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A11-1307, 814 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"Under Minnesota unemployment-insurance law, an employment relationship may exist between a worker cooperative and its members, obligating the cooperative to pay unemployment-insurance taxes."
Briefs.

Nelson vs. Levy, A10-0996, 796 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"1. In the context of a subcontractor in the construction industry, the phrase "main expenses" in Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 9 (Supp. 2007), does not include the cost of the construction materials used in the job. 2. A limited liability corporation (LLC) in the construction industry is not considered another entity's employee under Minn. Stat. § 181.723 (2008)."
Briefs.

Halvorson vs. County of Anoka, A09-0672, 780 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"1. An employee works "with [an] educational institution" under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 7(a) (2008), if the employee's workplace and position is managed by an educational entity. A school that is a part of a correctional institution but has its own building, teachers, and administrators, and provides state-mandated educational programs is such an entity. 2. An educational entity's summer term is "between academic years" under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 7, if the entity's academic calendar follows a typical school calendar, advances students by grade levels upon completion of academic years, offers a summer program with reduced enrollment for remedial classes, provides breaks before and after the summer term, and offers continuing full-time employment in the fall."
Briefs.

Lamah vs. Doherty Employment Group, Inc., A06-1680, 737 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"A person performing 32 or more hours a week of service in employment, covered employment, noncovered employment, self-employment, or volunteer work is presumptively employed full time for purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits. This presumption may be rebutted."
Briefs.

Samuelson vs. Prudential Real Estate, A04-1416, 696 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
"For purposes of establishing an unemployment benefits account, an insurance salesperson who is compensated by both a commission and an employer-provided benefits package is not compensated solely by commission, and therefore is not engaged in noncovered employment under Minn. Stat. 268.035, subd. 20(26) (2002)."

Equal Protection

Greene vs. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, A06-0804, 755 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2008)
"1. Minnesota Statutes § 256J.645, subd. 4 (2006), requires that a tribal member residing in the service area of a federally recognized tribe, which provides employment services under an agreement with the State of Minnesota, receive employment services through the tribe and is subject to sanction for refusing to participate in those services. Under Minn. Stat. § 256J.57, subd. 1 (2006), a tribal member has the right to show good cause for failing to participate in the employment services through the tribe. 2. Because Minn. Stat. § 256J.645, subd. 4, neither burdens a fundamental right nor involves a suspect classification, rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to an equal protection challenge under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. 3. Minnesota Statutes § 256J.645, subd. 4, satisfies rational basis review under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions."
Briefs.

Weir vs. ACCRA Care, Inc., A12-0764, 828 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
"Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 20(20) (2012), which makes personal-care assistants who provide direct care to an immediate family member ineligible for unemployment benefits, is unconstitutional because it arbitrarily distinguishes between similarly situated individuals in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Minnesota Constitution."
Briefs.

Haugen vs. Superior Development, Inc., A11-1888, 819 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"The requirement that employers but not unemployed individuals pay fees associated with appeals of unemployment-benefits decisions, under Minnesota Statutes section 268.105, subdivision 7 (2010), does not violate the equal protection clause of the Minnesota Constitution."
Briefs.

Equity

Irvine vs. St. John's Lutheran Church of Mound, A09-1155, 779 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"1. The commissioner of the department of employment and economic development is not required to pay unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1 (2008), to an applicant who was employed by a tax-exempt church in "noncovered employment" under Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 20(7) (2008), because noncovered employment cannot be used to establish an unemployment-benefit account under Minn. Stat. § 268.07 (2008), unless the church elects to have the employment deemed "covered employment" and the commissioner approves the election under Minn. Stat. § 268.042, subd. 3(a) (2008). 2. Unemployment benefits may not be allowed for equitable reasons under Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2008)."
Briefs.

Evidentiary Issues and Standards

Dourney vs. CMAK Corp., A10-1003, 796 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"I. Inadvertent conduct, even if negligent, is not employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 2009). II. A finding that an employee forgot to ask a customer for identification to verify that the customer was old enough to legally drink alcohol is supported by substantial evidence when the employee testified that she always cards people, she did not know why she did not card the customer, and she had never previously been written up or reprimanded for serving underage customers or failing to request identification."
Briefs.

Vasseei vs. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc., A10-0423, 793 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"Upon a timely request for reconsideration, if an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determines that an unrepresented party's failure to present evidence at a hearing resulted from the ULJ's failure to assist the party as required by Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2009), the ULJ may set aside the decision and order an additional evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a)(2) (Supp. 2009)."
Briefs.

Wichmann vs. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc., A06-0677, 729 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"When the credibility of a party or witness who testifies at an unemployment-benefits evidentiary hearing significantly affects the outcome of the proceeding, Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2005) requires the unemployment law judge to make findings that explain why the judge credited or discredited testimony. When an unemployment law judge fails to make any statutorily required findings addressing credibility, we will remand for additional findings."
Briefs.

Ywswf vs. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc., A06-0324, 726 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"1. The unemployment law judge must ensure that unrepresented parties receive a fair hearing. 2. This court will defer to an unemployment law judge's credibility determinations under Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2005) that are supported by substantial evidence. 3. To obtain an additional evidentiary hearing on reconsideration under Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 2(c) (Supp. 2005), the movant must meet the statutory requirements."
Briefs.

Coons vs. Dept. of Empl. & Econ. Dev., (Minn. Ct. App. April 21, 2014) Unpublished. Relator appealed from the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not unemployed. The court found that the ULJ's finding that Coons worked 32 hours or more was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the ineligibility determination.

Failure to Seek Employment

Neumann v. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A13-1007, 844 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
"Minn. Stat. 268.085, subd. 16(a) (2012), requires that an unemployment law judge consider existing conditions in an applicant's labor market area before determining that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits because the applicant has failed to actively seek employment."
Briefs

Good Cause to Quit

Wiley vs. Robert Half International, Inc., A12-2086, 834 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
"To be eligible for unemployment benefits under Minnesota Statutes section 268.095, subdivision 1(3) (2010), the unsuitability of employment must be at least one of the reasons the applicant quit the employment."
Briefs.

Thao vs. Command Center, Inc., A12-0068, 824 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"When an employer unilaterally and substantially decreases an employee's hours of work, the employee has no duty to complain to the employer and give the employer an opportunity to correct the adverse change before the reduction in hours will be deemed to be a good reason to quit caused by the employer."
Briefs.

Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., A11-1135 812 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"When an employer in the construction industry encourages its employee to resign her employment and form a limited liability corporation (LLC), but does not inform the employee that she will no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits once she does so, the employer's failure to so disclose constitutes good reason to quit caused by the employer under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2010)."
Briefs.

Werner vs. Medical Professionals LLC, A09-1265, 782 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"When an employer's relocation of its office increases an employee's one-way commute by 17 miles, the employee does not have a good reason to quit attributable to the employer for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2008), and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2008)."
Briefs.

Nichols vs. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., A05-2165, 720 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"Harassment by a fellow employee, coupled with an employer's failure to effectively address the harassment of a co-worker, may satisfy the good reason to quit one's employment as required under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 3 (2004)."
Briefs.

Johnson vs. Walch & Walch, Inc., A04-1451, 696 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
"An employee's unsupported apprehension that her income at a nearby work site will be substantially less than at her current work site is not good reason to quit under unemployment compensation law."
Briefs.

Munro Holding, LLC vs. Cook, A04-1249, 695 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
"1. When an employer-owner repeatedly grabs an employee's hips, brushes up against her from behind and, on one occasion, squeezes the employee's buttocks, the employer has engaged in sexual harassment as defined by Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 3(e)(3) (Supp. 2003). 2. When an employer-owner sexually harasses an employee in a patently offensive manner, the employee need not complain to the employer or wait for the employer to take timely and appropriate action to stop the conduct in order to establish that the employee quit because of a good reason caused by the employer."
Briefs.

Rootes vs. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., A03-233, 669 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"An employee who resigns from employment rather than accept substantial adverse changes in wages and hours has good reason caused by the employer to quit under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 3(c) (2002), and is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2002)."
Briefs.

Hayes vs. K-Mart Corporation, C1-02-2056, 665 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"Where an employer breaches the employment agreement by failing to grant an employee a promised pay increase, the employee has good reason caused by the employer for quitting and is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2002)."
Briefs.

Edward vs. Sentinel Management Co., C1-99-1851, 611 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
"An employee who resigns from his employment as part of a workers' compensation settlement, but who has the option of remaining employed and continuing to pursue a claim, does not quit for good reason caused by the employer for purposes of eligibility for reemployment benefits."

Hein vs. Precision Associates, Inc., C7-99-1708, 609 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
"Reducing an employee's hours and reassigning the employee to a different position, in response to the employee's excessive absenteeism, do not constitute good reason to quit attributable to the employer."

Williams vs. Right Step Academy, C3-99-1222, 607 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
"Once an employer has shown that an employee has voluntarily quit, the burden shifts to the employee, at least initially, to show a good reason caused by the employer for leaving employment."

Kehoe vs. Minnesota Department of Economic Security, C4-97-494, 568 N.W.2d 889 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
"An employee who terminates employment to take advantage of an early retirement incentive program does not quit with good cause attributable to his employer under Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1 (1996)."

Haskins vs. Choice Auto Rental, Inc., C8-96-1685, 558 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997)
"Because the ULJ did not make findings regarding the alleged aggressive behavior and did not indicate whether that behavior was the reason Bentrud quit, the ULJ's findings are insufficient to determine whether Bentrud had a reason to quit that 'would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.'" ULJ's decision was reversed and remanded.

Bentrud vs. Robin Drug Corp., A13-0328 (Minn. Ct. App. November 18, 2013) unpublished
"Because the ULJ did not make findings regarding the alleged aggressive behavior and did not indicate whether that behavior was the reason Bentrud quit, the ULJ's findings are insufficient to determine whether Bentrud had a reason to quit that 'would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.'" ULJ's decision was reversed and remanded.

Stech v. County of Carver, A11-2096 (Minn. Ct. App. September 10, 2012) unpublished
"Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that he had a good reason to quit in declining a new position offered to him by the employer after his former position was eliminated. Because the reasons offered by relator, considered in totality, do not constitute good reason to quit his employment, we affirm."

Independent Contractor

St. Croix Sensory Inc. vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A09-1627 785 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"A worker is an independent contractor when the totality of circumstances indicates that the worker exercises independence in controlling the method of performance, the control exercised over the worker by the employer is influenced by industry standards and client specifications, and the employer may not discharge the worker without incurring some liability."
Briefs.

Don Robinson Motors, Inc. vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A13-0327, (Minn. Ct. App. December 16, 2013) unpublished
(Minn. Ct. App. December 16, 2013) unpublished At issue was whether drivers who transport used vehicles from auctions to employer's lot were employees rather than independent contractors. The Court of Appeals reversed the ULJ because the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the ULJ's determination that the drivers were employees

Medical Necessity Exception

Aspley vs. Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration, A12-0531, (Minn. Ct. App. December 3, 2012) unpublished
"Where an employee quits a position without good cause, the medical necessity exception to benefits eligibility only applies if the illness or medical condition makes it 'medically necessary that the applicant quit,' and 'the applicant informs the employer of the medical problem and requests accommodation and no reasonable accommodation is made available.'"

Mental Illness or Impairment

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assoc. Inc., A11-153 809 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"When an employer discharges an employee for conduct that is indisputably caused by the employee's inability to concentrate and multitask as a result of strokes that he suffered, the conduct is a 'consequence of' a mental illness or impairment pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(b)(1) (2010), and the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits."
Briefs.

Skottegaard v. Comcast Cablevision Corporation, A11-2130, (Minn. Ct. App. September 4, 2012) unpublished
"Because relator's conduct ... was a consequence of mental illness, and because the ULJ found that relator was disciplined for a course of conduct that was a consequence of mental illness, the ULJ erred as a matter of law in concluding that the mental-illness exception was inapplicable. We conclude that because relator was not discharged for employment misconduct she is eligible for unemployment benefits."

Misconduct

Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc.,  __ N.W.2d__ (Minn. 2016) 1. Because the statutory definition of “employment misconduct” in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2016), is the exclusive definition for determining employee eligibility for unemployment benefits, the court of appeals erred in applying an incompatible common law materiality definition. 2. Because respondent Wilson’s misrepresentations on her employment application constitute “employment misconduct” under section 268.095, subdivision 6(a), she is not eligible for unemployment benefits. Reversed.

Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., A09-0949 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2011)
Stagg worked for a group home for troubled youths and was terminated for attendance problems. DEED denied Stagg benefits. On appeal, Stagg argued that Vintage Place had failed to follow its own five-step disciplinary procedure. The court of appeals ruled that Vintage was required to follow its disciplinary policy. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, grounding the definition of misconduct in the statute, not the employer's policy. "[W]hether an employer follows the procedures in its employee manual says nothing about whether the employee has violated the employer's standards of behavior. Put another way, an employee's expectation that the employer will follow its disciplinary procedures has no bearing on whether the employee's conduct violated the standards the employer has a reasonable right to expect or whether any such violation is serious. [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]
Briefs.

Jenkins vs. American Express Financial Corporation, A04-2308, 721 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 2006)
"Absence from work due to incarceration is not misconduct that will disqualify an employee on a per se basis from establishing eligibility for the receipt of unemployment compensation. Under the unique facts of this case, an employee who is absent from work due to incarceration has not engaged in misconduct that will disqualify her from the receipt of unemployment compensation, where employee made arrangements to continue her existing employment while on work release, but her employer failed to verify her employment."
Briefs.

Houston vs. International Data Transfer Corp., C1-00-2151, 645 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. 2002)
"1. For purposes of employee's disqualification from unemployment compensation for employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1) (2000), there must be a sufficient showing in the record that employee not only engaged in intentional conduct, but also intended to, or engaged in conduct that evinced an intent to, ignore or pay no attention to his or her duties and obligations or the standards of behavior employer has a right to expect. 2. Absent a sufficient showing in the record that employee intentionally ignored or paid no attention to her duties and obligations to employer or the standards of behavior that employer had a right to expect, the conduct resulting in employee's termination was not employment misconduct within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1)."
Briefs.

Schmidgall vs. FilmTec Corp, C8-01-4, 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002)
"Claimant seeking unemployment compensation was disqualified for employment misconduct in connection with violations of the employer's same-shift injury reporting policy."
Briefs.

Icenhower v. Total Automotive Inc., A13-1287 845 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
"The ULJ's decision to not issue the subpoenas requested by Icenhower did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Icenhower committed employment misconduct by lying to her employer during its workplace-theft investigation."

Potter v. Northern Empire Pizza, Inc., A10-1965 805 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"Because no single-incident exception to employment misconduct exists and employers may require employees to refrain from physical contact arising from workplace disputes, an employee's single-incident poking of his coworker during an argument constitutes employment misconduct under Minnesota Statutes section 268.095, subdivision 6(a) (2010)."
Briefs.

Dourney vs. CMAK Corp., A10-1003, 796 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
"I. Inadvertent conduct, even if negligent, is not employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (Supp. 2009). II. A finding that an employee forgot to ask a customer for identification to verify that the customer was old enough to legally drink alcohol is supported by substantial evidence when the employee testified that she always cards people, she did not know why she did not card the customer, and she had never previously been written up or reprimanded for serving underage customers or failing to request identification."
Briefs.

Santillana vs. Central Minnesota Council on Aging, A10-327, 791 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"1. A misrepresentation made by an applicant during the hiring process that is material to the position constitutes employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2009). 2. An employee cannot be discharged for aggravated employment misconduct unless the involved conduct was committed during the same time period as the employment."
Briefs.

Brisson vs. City of Hewitt, A10-351, 789 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"Using an employer's computer to open pornographic e-mail attachments and access pornographic websites is a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to reasonably expect of an employee, even if the employer has not adopted a policy that prohibits the conduct."
Briefs.

Lawrence vs. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc., A09-1957, 785 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"When an employee's child-support obligation is unpaid due to the employee's intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct and the employee's driver's license that was necessary for employment is therefore suspended, the employee commits employment misconduct within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2008)."
Briefs.

Hanson vs. Crestliner Inc., A08-2057, 772 N.W.2d 539 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
"An employee's absence from employment without notice to his employer due to the unexpected hospitalization of an immediate family member is not employment misconduct, because it does not display clearly a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect or display clearly a substantial lack of concern for employment; such conduct is that in which the average reasonable employee would engage under the circumstances."
Briefs.

Bangtson vs. Allina Medical Group A08-1587, 766 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009)
"1. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 (2008) for purposes of determining eligibility for unemployment benefits, a notice of future discharge is not a discharge when employment in any capacity is available to the employee who receives the notice. 2. An employee who is discharged for committing employee misconduct after receiving a notice of future discharge but before the discharge is scheduled to occur is ineligible for unemployment benefits."
Briefs.

Marn vs. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC, A07-1644, 756 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"An employee who breaches a duty of loyalty to the employer commits employment misconduct disqualifying the employee from receiving unemployment benefits."
Briefs.

Peterson vs. Northwest Airlines Inc., A07-1704, 753 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"1. An airline pilot whose consumption of alcohol violates his employer's policy prohibiting alcohol consumption while on flight reserve status commits employment misconduct, as defined by Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2006), for the purpose of determining qualification for unemployment benefits. 2. The single-incident exception to employment misconduct in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) does not apply when an airline pilot violates his employer's policy prohibiting alcohol consumption while on flight reserve status because the pilot's inability to fly has a significant adverse impact on the employer."
Briefs.

Frank vs. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc., A06-2217, 743 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"When an employee on one occasion intentionally charges one of his employer's customers for a service that the employee knows was not performed, the employee's fraudulent charge does not qualify as a single-incident exception to employee misconduct in Minnesota Statutes section 268.095, subdivision 6."
Briefs.

Pierce vs. DiMa Corporation, A05-2470, 721 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"A single violation of an employer's cash-register policy that does not involve theft or the mishandling of funds is within the single-incident exception to the definition of employment misconduct in Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 6 (2004)."
Briefs.

Skarhus vs. Davanni's Inc., A05-1995, 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"An employee's single incident of theft from an employer of items of modest value has a significant adverse impact on the employer and thereby constitutes employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 6 (2004), when such misconduct undermines the employer's ability to assign essential job functions to that employee."
Briefs.

Brown vs. National American University, A04-62, 686 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
"When determining the appropriate definition of employment misconduct to apply, this court looks to the date an employer discharged an employee rather than the day or days on which the employment misconduct occurred."
Briefs.

Bray vs. Dogs & Cats Limited A03-1413, 679 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
"Mere unsatisfactory performance does not constitute employment misconduct. In unemployment compensation cases, this court will apply the statutory definition of employment misconduct in effect at the time the employee is discharged."
Briefs.

Vargas vs. Northwest Area Foundation, A03-498, 673 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
"Refusing to participate in a reasonable employment-performance plan is an intentional disregard of employment duties and constitutes employment misconduct disqualifying a discharged employee from receipt of unemployment benefits."
Briefs.

Risk vs. Eastside Beverage, C0-02-1920, 664 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"It is employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2002) for an employee, during working hours, to have an alcohol concentration level over the legal limit while driving his employer's vehicle."
Briefs.

Sargent v. Manny Moe & Jack of Calif., A13-1669 (Minn. Ct. App. May 19, 2014) unpublished
Sargent challenged the unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that he was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for misconduct. The court determined that "Sargent's conduct was inadvertent and did not have a significant adverse impact on his employer. He is entitled to unemployment benefits."

Proefrock v. Brighter Day Residence, Inc., A13-1149 (Minn. Ct. App. May 5, 2014) unpublished
The court determined that the relator did not commit unemployment misconduct when she was involved in a disturbance at her home that resulted in a conviction for misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The court determined that it was a single incident that "had nothing to do with the her capacity or trustworthiness".

Niygwo v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, A13-0405 (Minn. Ct. App. February 3, 2014) unpublished
Relator challenged the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for employment misconduct, and was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) did not properly notify the relator of the statutory provisions regarding additional evidence. Since relator had additional evidence that required an additional evidentiary hearing, the cases is reversed and remanded back to the ULJ.

Karsa vs. Minnesota Department of Corrections, A12-0134, (Minn. Ct. App. August 6, 2012) unpublished
A corrections officer's failure to submit written reports concerning physical altercations with an offender constitutes misconduct within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1) (2010).

Baker v. Divine Healthcare Corp., A11-1891 (Minn. Ct. App. July 9, 2012) unpublished 
Baker worked as a PCA, caring for vulnerable adults, including Henry, who lived with Baker and was the father of her children. Henry's authorized PCA hours increased, as did the hours for Rosela, another of Baker's clients. Baker began working many ours overtime. DHC had difficulty finding other PCAs to work with Henry and Rosela, and asked Baker to give up some of her hours with Henry. Baker had some temporary success in finding alternative care for Henry, but she continued to work many overtime hours. DHC fired Baker for violation of its overtime policy and DEED denied Baker benefits. The court of appeals reversed, holding that DHC's policy was not reasonable. Baker was brought to DCA as Henry's chosen PCA pursuant to state law, so DHC "did not have the right to reasonably expect" Baker to give up her hours with Henry. Additionally, DHC did not have the right to "reasonably expect that relator would not work unauthorized overtime hours because DHC controlled her schedule, made no effort to reduce relator's PCA hours with Rosela, and did nothing to address Rosela's repeated need for emergency PCA services." [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]

Macias v. Health Care Compliance Association, A11-1837 (Minn. Ct. App. June 25, 2012) unpublished
Macias told A.W., a friend at work, that Macias and her husband had an open relationship and her husband was interested in beginning a romantic relationship with A.W. Macias brought A.W. a note from her husband and her husband later texted A.W. HCAA's human resources department, following a complaint by A.W., instructed Macias to have no further contact with A.W. Macias had no further contact with A.W., but Macias did not tell her husband about this instruction and he sent A.W. a further text. DEED denied Macias benefits and the court of appeals affirmed. "Even if Macias's conduct did not violate HCCA's sexual-harassment policy, it violated the standards of behavior HCCA had the right to reasonably expect." [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]

Ostrander vs. Minnesota Department of Corrections, A11-1216, (Minn. Ct. App. June 4, 2012) unpublished
It is employment misconduct for a Department of Corrections employee to show an inmate her personal business website, contrary to a department policy prohibiting employees from revealing certain types of personal information to inmates.

Hommerding v. Cold Spring Granite Co., A11-1524 (Minn. Ct. App. May 21, 2012) unpublished 
"Relator challenges an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision on reconsideration that she was discharged for employment misconduct after she asked a coworker to punch in for her, in violation of her employer's time-card policy. We reverse because we conclude that in this very narrow set of circumstances--where an employee asks a coworker to punch in for her shift, the employee arrives at work before her shift begins, and the record does not show that the employee is paid for time she did not work--the employee does not commit a 'serious violation' of the employer's reasonable standards of behavior."

Asong-Morfaw vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, A11-1325, (Minn. Ct. App. April 9, 2012) unpublished
An employee commits absenteeism and therefore misconduct when he refuses to return to work after an injury, despite a doctor's note stating he can to return to work with modified duties. The employee's fear that returning to work may cause further pain or injury is not enough to justify the absenteeism.

Fehl v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., A11-491 (Minn. Ct. App. January 9, 2012) unpublished 
Employee's failure to follow proper procedures upon the discovery that cash was missing was conduct that constitutes a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to reasonably expect from its store managers.

Sharp v. Hayloft Property Management. Co., A11-490 (Minn. Ct. App. January 3, 2012) unpublished
Sharp worked as a maintenance technician at Hayloft. Employees used golf carts to travel to job sites. A sign on the garage cautioned drivers that the automatic door was timed to allow one vehicle through at a time. Sharp followed another employee's golf cart into the garage and the door closed, damaging Sharp's cart. The ULJ found Sharp had committed misconduct because his actions were a serious violation of Hayloft's reasonable expectations. The court of appeals reversed, stating "procedure does not constitute policy." Since the sign was a warning, rather than a policy, Sharp's conduct was a good faith error in judgment. [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]

Killion v. County of Hennepin, A11-250 (Minn. Ct. App. October 31, 2011) unpublished 
"Relator [...] challenges the decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct after she physically threatened a client. We affirm."

Luckett v. Centerline Charter Corporation, A11-251 (Minn. Ct. App. September 26, 2011) unpublished 
Luckett worked as a bus driver for Centerline and, after an unavoidable work-related accident, was required to submit a urine sample. The test results were negative, but showed the sample had been diluted. Luckett submitted another sample which also tested as negative, but diluted. Luckett took a leave of absence for a non-work-related injury and, following a contretemps about her return to work, was terminated for unprofessional behavior and leaving a rude telephone message. The ULJ denied Luckett benefits on reconsideration, finding that Luckett was discharged because of misconduct including submission of diluted urine samples. The court of appeals reversed because, in part, the record did not support a finding that the diluted drug samples were a basis for the discharge. [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]

Moore v. Minnesota Lung Center, Ltd., A10-1868 (Minn. Ct. App. August 8, 2011) unpublished
"Moore was a sleep technician employed by the Minnesota Lung Center when she was involuntarily discharged after allowing her training to fall behind her position's changing qualifications. She appeals an unemployment law judge's decision that the Lung Center discharged her for employment misconduct, rendering her ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Because the record establishes that Moore's failure to complete the required training resulted from her financial inability, which is not employment misconduct, we reverse."

Barber v. Minnesota State Community & Technical College, A10-2215 (Minn. Ct. App. July 25, 2011) unpublished 
Barber worked as a full-time plumbing instructor for MSCTC, beginning in 2005. In 2006, MNSCU adopted a policy that included completion of the Teacher Education Series (TES). Based on discussions with the head of Human Resources, Barber believed he was exempt from the TES requirement. In 2009, after the retirement of the head of HR, the HR department told Barber he needed to complete the TES courses. Barber said he was exempt and refused to take the TES courses. MSCTC fired Barber. DEED denied Barber benefits because he had failed to abide by the employer's reasonable policies. Because it was "not clear that the employer communicated its policy directive and the consequences of not following the policy" to Barber, the court of appeals reversed. [Summary provided by Prof. Peter Knapp, William Mitchell College of Law]

Hanson vs. Emerald Care Inc., A10-41, (Minn. Ct. App. November 30, 2010) unpublished
Repeatedly failing to follow procedure for administering medication to residents of live-in facility constitutes employee misconduct and employee is therefore not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Procedural Issues

Greene vs. Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, A06-804, 755 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2008)
"1. Minnesota Statutes § 256J.645, subd. 4 (2006), requires that a tribal member residing in the service area of a federally recognized tribe, which provides employment services under an agreement with the State of Minnesota, receive employment services through the tribe and is subject to sanction for refusing to participate in those services. Under Minn. Stat. § 256J.57, subd. 1 (2006), a tribal member has the right to show good cause for failing to participate in the employment services through the tribe. 2. Because Minn. Stat. § 256J.645, subd. 4, neither burdens a fundamental right nor involves a suspect classification, rational basis review is the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to an equal protection challenge under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. 3. Minnesota Statutes § 256J.645, subd. 4, satisfies rational basis review under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions."
Briefs.

Godbout vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A12-1283, 827 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)
"To satisfy the constitutional right to due process, a determination of overpayment of unemployment-insurance benefits by fraud must be preceded by clear notice to the recipient of the potential consequences of failing to maintain a current mailing address with the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) after the receipt of benefits. Absent such notice, the appeal period to challenge a determination of overpayment by fraud does not begin to run until the subject of the determination receives actual notice of the determination."
Briefs.

Kangas vs. Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc., A11-1207, 814 N.W.2d 97 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"An electronically transmitted administrative appeal from a determination by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development is '[a] written statement delivered' to the department under Minnesota Statutes section 268.103, 2 subdivision 2(b), which perfects the appeal if the transmission occurs within the statutory appeal deadline."
Briefs.

Stassen vs. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, A11-0954, 814 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
"If an employer uses the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development's website to inform the department that its address has changed and the department later sends a notice of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the employer using a different address, the mailing does not trigger the twenty-day period for the employer to appeal the eligibility determination under Minnesota Statutes section 268.101, subdivision 2(f)."
Briefs.

Vasseei vs. Schmitty & Sons School Buses Inc., A10-0423, 793 N.W.2d 747 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"Upon a timely request for reconsideration, if an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determines that an unrepresented party's failure to present evidence at a hearing resulted from the ULJ's failure to assist the party as required by Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2009), the ULJ may set aside the decision and order an additional evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a)(2) (Supp. 2009)."
Briefs.

Kelly vs. Ambassador Press, Inc., A10-0517, 792 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"Insufficient notice of an appeal hearing under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1(a) (Supp. 2009), may constitute good cause for an applicant's failure to participate in the evidentiary hearing."
Briefs.

Petracek vs. University of Minnesota, A09-1475, 780 N.W.2d 927 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)
"Under Minn. Stat § 268.105, subd. 2(d) (2008), an applicant for unemployment benefits does not show good cause for missing an evidentiary hearing on his appeal from an ineligibility determination merely by reciting that he was in jail at the time of the hearing."
Briefs.

The Work Connection, Inc. vs. Bui, A07-0348, 749 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"1. In reviewing the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ), the court of appeals may consider an issue first raised by a party and determined by the ULJ on reconsideration. 2. An applicant for unemployment benefits who relies on public transit may meet the requirement of having "transportation throughout the labor market area" to be available for suitable employment in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006). 3. An applicant's eligibility under the transportation requirement of Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e), is determined by examining an applicant's particular circumstances and whether the applicant has access to transportation such that he/she is available for work."
Briefs.

Reynolds vs. Minnesota Department of Human Services, A06-1943. 737 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"Minn. Stat. 256.045, subd. 7 (2004), which requires that an aggrieved party appeal an adverse decision from the commissioner of human services to a district court within 30 days after issuance of the commissioners order, must be read in conjunction with Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.05 to permit an additional three days to serve a notice of appeal when the order is issued to the party by mail."
Briefs.

Wichmann vs. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc., A06-677, 729 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"When the credibility of a party or witness who testifies at an unemployment-benefits evidentiary hearing significantly affects the outcome of the proceeding, Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2005) requires the unemployment law judge to make findings that explain why the judge credited or discredited testimony. When an unemployment law judge fails to make any statutorily required findings addressing credibility, we will remand for additional findings."
Briefs.

Bukkuri vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A06-0706, 729 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"When the period between an unemployment-benefits applicant's loss of employment and application for benefits is greater than one week, under Minn. Stat. 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (Supp. 2005), an application for unemployment benefits may be backdated only one calendar week prior to the Sunday of the week the application was filed."
Briefs.

Ywswf vs. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc., A06-0324, 726 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
"1. The unemployment law judge must ensure that unrepresented parties receive a fair hearing. 2. This court will defer to an unemployment law judge's credibility determinations under Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 1(c) (Supp. 2005) that are supported by substantial evidence. 3. To obtain an additional evidentiary hearing on reconsideration under Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 2(c) (Supp. 2005), the movant must meet the statutory requirements."
Briefs.

Enterprise Communications, Inc. vs. Department of Employment & Economic Development, A05-2513, 724 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"1. A decision of this court that an employee qualifies for unemployment benefits does not preclude future consideration by the Department of Employment and Economic Development of that employee's eligibility for ongoing benefits. 2. Employers may not protest the payment of unemployment benefits to individual employees in proceedings to review computed unemployment tax rates pursuant to Minn. Stat. 268.051, subd. 6(c) (Supp. 2005). 3. The Department of Employment and Economic Development must act on an employer's timely and properly filed objections regarding employee eligibility for unemployment benefits. 4. The court of appeals may decline to consider employer assertions that an employee was not eligible for continuing benefits until the Department of Employment and Economic Development has considered the controversy."
Briefs.

Jaskowiak vs. CM Construction Company, Inc., A05-2248, 717 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"Under Minn. Stat. 268.105, subd. 2(d) (Supp. 2005), a party who fails to participate in an evidentiary hearing before an unemployment-law judge must be informed in the notice of the request for reconsideration of the opportunity to show good cause for failing to participate and thereby obtain an additional evidentiary hearing."
Briefs.

Kennedy vs. American Paper Recycling Corp., A05-2142, 714 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"An appeal postmarked 31 days after the mailing date of the department adjudicator's initial determination that the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits is untimely and requires dismissal of the appeal."
Briefs.

Morales vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A05-1907, 713 N.W.2d 882 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
"When an unemployed person seeks to apply for unemployment benefits but is incorrectly told by an employee of the Department of Employment and Economic Development to apply later, that person made a bona fide attempt for benefits, but was prevented from doing so. Relator's benefits account is now deemed effective on the Sunday of the calendar week that he first attempted to file an application under Minn. Stat. 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (2004)."
Briefs.

Rowe vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, A04-2200, 704 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)
"An unemployment law judge lacks jurisdiction to correct an error in a decision after that decision has become the final department decision."

Waletich Corporation vs. Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, A03-1739, 682 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
"A telephone appeal of a determination by the Department of Employment and Economic Development regarding unemployment liability is not effective unless the determination provides that such an informal appeal is available."

Sorenson vs. Life Style, Inc., A03-1505, 674 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
"In an unemployment benefits appeal, the petition for writ of certiorari is properly served on counsel representing the employer."

Ntamere vs. Decision One Corporation, A03-0355, 673 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
"A party to an unemployment benefit dispute, subject to a validly issued subpoena, must comply with the subpoena or offer legally sufficient reasons for noncompliance."

Williams vs. Right Step Academy C3-99-1222, 607 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
"Once an employer has shown that an employee has voluntarily quit, the burden shifts to the employee, at least initially, to show a good reason caused by the employer for leaving employment."

Locks v. Volunteers of America of Minnesota, Corp., A11-1899 (Minn. Ct. App. September 17, 2012) unpublished
"Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator argues that (1) she did not engage in misconduct because she acted reasonably under the circumstances or because her conduct was the result of inability and a good-faith error in judgment and (2) the ULJ failed to fully develop the record because a subsequent investigation by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) concluded that relator acted reasonably. Relator moved to remand the matter for consideration of a DHS report because the report amounts to new evidence that should be considered by the ULJ in a new evidentiary hearing. We deny the motion and affirm."

Hulett v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, A11-483, (Minn. Ct. App. January 23, 2012) unpublished 
"Relator challenges the determination by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment-compensation benefits because she was discharged for aggravated employment misconduct. She also moves to supplement the record with evidence that a previous criminal charge based on the alleged misconduct has been dismissed. Because the dismissal of criminal charges may be relevant to determining relator's eligibility for benefits based on aggravated employment misconduct, we grant the motion and reverse and remand for the ULJ to consider that issue, as well as whether relator should be deemed ineligible for benefits based on employment misconduct."

Transportation

The Work Connection, Inc. vs. Bui, A07-0348, 749 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
"1. In reviewing the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ), the court of appeals may consider an issue first raised by a party and determined by the ULJ on reconsideration. 2. An applicant for unemployment benefits who relies on public transit may meet the requirement of having "transportation throughout the labor market area" to be available for suitable employment in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e) (2006). 3. An applicant's eligibility under the transportation requirement of Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(e), is determined by examining an applicant's particular circumstances and whether the applicant has access to transportation such that he/she is available for work."
Briefs.

Voluntary Quit

Frederick Wright vs. Atterro, Inc., A13-2342, (Minn. Ct. App. August 18, 2014) unpublished "The lack of evidence to support the ULJ's finding that Wright quit his employment and the manner in which Wright's claims were handled warrants reversal of the ULJ's ineligibility determination."

Howard v. Immanuel - St. Joseph's Hospital, A13-0964, (Minn. Ct. App. March 17, 2014) unpublished
"Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she quit her employment." She asked the court for a remand because the ULJ reached a decision without making mandatory credibility findings. The "ULJ's failure to make the credibility findings to support its decision necessitates a remand for findings."

 

 

 

back to top