Articles

Quitters are jinxed, whether jailed or jailer

"It's just like living in jail."
Richard Wright, Native Son (1940)

By Marshall H. Tanick

It has become commonplace for employees to quit their jobs and seek unemployment compensation benefits. But they almost invariably meet the same fate: they lose their claims. See Perspectives "Lesson for employees: Quit job, lose unemployment benefits," in the March 1, 2010, edition of Minnesota Lawyer.

A recent pair of concurrent rulings of the Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed this conclusion. The two cases raised different underlying issues regarding the ultimate question of whether the employee quit without "good reason" attributable to the employer to establish ineligibility for benefits under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 1.

But the breadth of the "quit" doctrine was reflected in the status of the two claimants. One was incarcerated in jail prior to losing his job for failing to report to work. The other, ironically, was a jailer who claimed he was maltreated at the facility. In both cases, as in nearly all of their predecessors, the quitters found their claims jinxed, whether jailed or jailer.

Incarceration Issue

A packaging helper for an Edina company lost his claim for benefits on grounds that he improperly quit following his short term incarceration in Epps v. Express Employment Professionals, 2011 WL 891105 (Minn. App. March 15, 2011)(unpublished). The employee, who was incarcerated for four days, asked his roommate to inform his employer that he was in jail. But the roommate then told the employer that the worker had moved to Wisconsin. Ten days later, the employee sought to return to work, but the employer told him that he had been replaced. An Unemployment Law Judge (ULJ) from the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) held that the employee was ineligible for benefits because he quit his job without "good reason" caused by the employer, and the Appellate Court affirmed.

The evidence indicated that the claimant "abandoned his job." His ineligibility for unemployment compensation benefits turned on his decision to "end the employment ... insofar as he did not go to work or explain his absences in advance." There was conflicting evidence of when he first contacted the employer when he was released from jail, but the credibility issue was resolved in the employer's favor. Regardless of when he contacted the employer, management had already decided to "reassign his position."

The employee claimed that the ULJ improperly denied him a subpoena to seek telephone records to show when he first contacted the employer after he was rejected. The employee did not request a continuance of the hearing for a subpoena. But the first contact made was "irrelevant" because the employer had already determined that the claimant had "abandoned his job by refilling his assignment with another employee."

Brother Brouhaha

A veteran jailer for Waseca County who claimed he quit his job because, in part, he was harassed by his supervisor, who happened to be his brother, was denied unemployment compensation benefits in Kinniry v. County of Waseca, 2011 WL 891117 (Minn. App. March 15, 2011)(unpublished). The brouhaha was traceable to an incident in which the claimant's brother made some disparaging remarks about him at a bar. The claimant subsequently experienced medical problems, which he attributed to the stress of that incident and went on sick leave for about six weeks before he resigned. A ULJ denied his request for unemployment compensation benefits and the Appellate Court affirmed.

The employee's claim that he had "good reason" to quit was rejected because the employee failed to satisfy the statutory condition that he "first complained to the employer and gave the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the condition." The claimant reported no problems and requested no help at work. Further, the incident was not "directly related to his employment," as required by the statute because the personal dispute with his brother "occurred entirely outside of work." The employee never requested any alternative working arrangements but, after using his sick leave, he "chose not to return to work for reasons not directly related to his job."

The employee's contention that he was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because he quit due to "domestic abuse," under Minn. Stat. 268.095, subd. 1(9), was unavailing. The issue was not presented at the evidentiary hearing to the ULJ and there did "not appear to be any evidence of any interaction ... that qualifies as domestic abuse."

Quitting Quartet

In the weeks following the jailed and jailer cases, the appellate court addressed a number of other claims by quitting employees within and outside quitting employees in the unemployment compensation context. Here is a quartet of them.

In a rare reversal, in Gupta v. Dugarvin Minnesota, LLC, 2011 WL 1119758 (Minn. App. March 29, 2011) (unpublished), a live-in counselor at a group home was entitled to benefits because of "adverse alterations" in her working conditions, when she was reassigned to an inferior facility. The changed circumstances were the type that would "compel [an] average, reasonable employee" to quit.

But two other unemployment claimants lost their appeals. In Kohn v. Paper & Graphics, Inc., 2011 WL 119907 (Minn. App. March 29, 2011)(unpublished), a graphic designer in Rochester who quit because of objectionable behavior lost because she did not notify management of the problems and allow it to be corrected. In Ihinger v. Ultimate Acquisition Parners, L.P., 2011 WL 1119771 (Minn. App. March 29, 2011)(unpublished), a quitting salesman was unable to establish that he resigned due to claimed "force, threats, or overwhelming pressure."

Quitting also was fatal to the challenge of a discharged employee under the Veterans Preference Act. In Little v. Arrowhead Regional Corrections, 2011 WL 1235739 (Minn. App. April 5, 2011)(unpublished), denial of relief by the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs was upheld because the employee, a probation officer, resigned due to failure to provide supporting medical documentation for a leave of absence.

Although the unemployment compensation law allows unemployment benefits for employees who quit due to "good reason" caused by their employer, these cases show how difficult it can be to satisfy that standard. Nearly all employees who make the claim fail unless exceptional circumstances exist.