Lee v.
Nelson’s Markets, Inc.
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Unpublished. Filed July 5,
2005.
Nelson’s Markets employed Josephine Lee as a grocery
bagger. She was assisting customers in the store parking
lot and there was a woman and her child, about 3 to 4 years
of age, and was dressed in a dress, bonnet and high-heeled
shoes.
Lee said, to the woman, “If this little guy winds up gay, it’s your fault.” The woman reported the comment to a supervisor, and based up on that report, Lee was terminated. The employee handbook states that when an employee makes a discourteous comment to a customer, the employee may be immediately discharged.
Lee applied for unemployment benefits and was denied, finding that she was discharged for employee misconduct. She appealed and the unemployment law judge reversed, concluding that because Lee did not intend her comment to the woman to be offensive or discourteous, Lee did not commit employment misconduct. Employer appealed to a Senior Unemployment Review Judge, who reversed, finding that Lee intended her comment to be discourteous and concluding that the comment constituted employment misconduct. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision and affirmed. Lee challenged the finding that she bagged groceries for the complaining woman, and claims that she did not assist her. The Appellate Court found this error is harmless because it is not determinative of whether Lee committed employment misconduct. It was found that Lee accused the customer of being a bad mother and intended to upset her. Lee does not deny making the statement, but contends that her statement was motivated by concern for the boy’s well being. The Court affirmed that Lee intended to upset the customer. Employment misconduct means any intentional, negligent or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1) that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employment. Violation of a rule in an employee handbook may constitute employment misconduct. Even when a handbook does not inform the employee of the expectations of the employer, employment misconduct has been construed to include offensive or discourteous behavior toward patrons. Courteous treatment of customers is among “the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee” under Minn. Stat. Sec. 268.095, subd. 6. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Jonathan Almquist v. Infoscan, Inc.
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Unpublished. Filed July 5,
2005.
Almquist’s employment involved driving to visit
clients. He received a DWI on June 13, 2004, and was
informed that his driver’s license would be suspended on
June 21. He didn’t relay this information to employer until
June 21, when he told them he was going to apply for a work
permit. He found out he could not get a work permit for
several weeks when he went to the DMV that day. He called
his supervisor to report this and said that he would not be
returning to work. The supervisor told him to return by
taxi, but Almquist refused to do so because of the cost.
The supervisor finally reached him again later on that day
to schedule a meeting for 8:00 a.m. on the 22nd.
Late at
night on June 21st, Almquist went to his office, retrieved
his computer and left a Post-it note informing his
supervisor that he was “taking a couple of days” as personal
leave. He did not attend the meeting the next morning and
could not be contacted. Employer terminated his employment
on June 22nd. Almquist admits that he did not follow
procedure for requesting personal leave. He was denied
unemployment benefits and affirmed on two appeals. The
Court of Appeals affirmed also.
Enterprise Communications, Inc.v. Garrison. Minnesota Court of Appeals. Unpublished. Filed July 5, 2005.
Nancy Garrison was employed as a part time consultant by ECI from 1997 through 2004. She worked for a single client and on January 28, 2004 she was notified that the contract for that client would not be renewed. She asked about other assignments available with the same or similar pay, hours and commuting distance.
ECI had no other assignments available. ECI asked her not to file for unemployment benefits at this time to give ECI a chance to find other work for her. Two positions were offered on February 3, 2004, however they were not what Garrison considered a reasonable commuting distance. She applied for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account with an effective date of February 15, 2004.
Whether a person quit or was discharged from employment is a question of fact. “A discharge from employment occurs when any words or actions by an employer would lead a reasonable employee to believe that the employer will no longer allow the employee to work for the employer in any capacity. A layoff due to lack of work shall be considered a discharge.” Minn. Stat. Sec. 268.095, subd. 5(a).The Court found that the determination whether a discharge occurred is based on the statutory definition and not on the subjective perceptions of the employer and the employee. ECI argues that the period from January 28 and the offer on February 3 was too short to constitute a layoff, and therefore the Court should find that Garrison quit as a matter of law. ECI cited no authority to support the position that a layoff cannot occur immediately upon the cessation of work.
ECI also argued that Garrison was disqualified from receiving benefits because she failed to accept suitable employment when offered (based on the Feb 3rd offers). Minn. Stat. Sec. 268.095, subd. 11(a)(Supp. 2003) states that “Subdivision 8 shall only apply to offers of suitable employment made during the applicant’s benefit year.” “’Benefit Year’ means the period of 52 calendar weeks beginning the date a benefit account is effective.” Minn. Stat. Sec. 268.035, subd. 6 (2002). “A benefit account shall be established effective the Sunday of the calendar week that the application for unemployment benefits was filed.” Minn. Stat. Sec.268.07, subd. 3b(a)(Supp. 2003). Therefore, the Commissioner found that she was offered employment on February 3, and her benefit year did not start until February 15. The Court affirmed.
Frank v. Entegris, Inc.
Minnesota Court of Appeals. Unpublished. Filed July 5,
2005.
Frank
worked as an operator at Entegris’ Gaylord facility. On
December 12, 2003, he was approved for a transfer to their
Chaska facility, without a set date. As of January 13, this
transfer to Chaska had not been completed, and Frank
announced that he was quitting that day.
Testimony revealed that a replacement worker for his Gaylord position had been hired on January 12 who would require training before taking over. Management thought Frank’s transfer was likely within a month after the date he quit.
Under Minnesota law, an employee who quits is not disqualified if he or she had good reason caused by the employer for quitting. A good reason is a reason (1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; and (2) that is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment. Minn. Stat. Sec. 268.095, subd. (3)a.
Whether an employee has good cause to quit attributable to the employer is a question of law. The Court found no justification for a reasonable person quitting employment. The Court affirmed the Commissioner’s findings.
Click here for prior court summaries. If you have any questions, feel free to contact any of our litigation attorneys: Scott Kelly or William Partridge