This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Relator,
vs.
Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed August 15, 2006
Worke, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Georgiana M. Nehmzow, 1508 103rd Avenue Northwest, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (pro se relator)
Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc., c/o TALX Employer Services, LLC, P. O. Box 1160, Columbus, OH 43216-1160 (respondent)
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Relator Georgiana M. Nehmzow challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, having quit her employment without a good reason caused by her employer. Because the decision was supported by substantial evidence and not affected by error of law, we affirm.
This court may
reverse or modify the ULJ’s decision if the substantial rights of the
petitioner may have been prejudiced because the decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence or affected by error of law.
Relator was employed as a cook for respondent Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. from March 25, 2004 until July 1, 2005, when she quit. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) initially denied relator’s application for unemployment benefits, and relator appealed. Following a hearing before the ULJ, the ULJ found that relator felt that she was abused, harassed, and treated unfairly, but concluded that the record did not show any abuse, harassment, or unfair treatment. Relator filed a request for reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed that the decision was factually and legally correct.
An employee who
quits without good reason caused by the employer is disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits.
A good reason caused by the employer for quitting is a reason: (1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.
“What constitutes
good reason caused by the employer is defined exclusively by statute.” Rootes
v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 418 (
The ULJ asked relator how she was treated unfairly, and relator testified that on three occasions the center’s director yelled at her in front of teachers and children. The first incident took place in the director’s office shortly after relator started working. Relator claims that the director and two others yelled at her about “not doing a bus run.” The second incident took place in a classroom in front of some children and a teacher. Relator claims that the director yelled at her about ordering more food for the center. The third incident was on May 23, 2005, when relator went into the infant room while the freezer was being repaired. Relator claims that the director questioned what she was doing in front of the teacher and students. Relator provided no other incidents supporting her claim of unfair treatment. Relator quit after the May 23 incident because of her perception of the unpleasant work atmosphere and the lack of fairness, dignity, and respect she received from the director.
The record does
not support relator’s allegations that the director yelled at her on these
occasions. There also is no showing that
the director inappropriately or unreasonably raised these three issues with
relator. Similarly, relator’s written
claims of the director mistreating children, miscounting meals, and causing her
depression, were not corroborated nor do they provide an independent basis to
show good reason to quit. Relator had an
opportunity to subpoena witnesses and to provide the ULJ with more facts at the
hearing, but failed to do so. This
court’s review is limited to the facts adduced at the hearing before the ULJ at
the time of its decision.
Affirmed.