Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41820,41820 |
| Parties | Mary M. KANTOR, Relator, v. HONEYWELL, INC., Respondent, Department of Employment Security, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Evidence reviewed and held adequate to support a finding that unemployment compensation claimant voluntarily discontinued her employment to live with her husband.
2. Minn.St. 268.09, subd. 1(2), disqualifying for unemployment benefits a woman who is found to have voluntarily discontinued her employment to live with her husband, as applied to this case does not violate the equal protection clause of U.S.Const. Amend. XIV.
H. D. Buelow, Minneapolis, for relator.
Marvin Granath, Minneapolis, for respondent Honeywell.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kyle, Solicitor Gen., Peter C. Andrews, Asst. Sol. Attorney Gen., St. Paul, for respondent Dept. of Employment Security.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, and FRANK T. GALLAGHER, JJ.
Certiorari granted to review a decision of the commissioner of employment security affirming the determination of an appeal tribunal of the Department of Employment Security that relator left her employment at Honeywell, Inc., to live with her husband and was thus disqualified for unemployment benefits under Minn.St. 268,09, subd. 1(2).
Relator was employed by Honeywell at a Minneapolis plant from August 1949 until June 9, 1967. On April 10, 1967, relator and her husband purchased a home and resort in Northome, Minnesota. Later that month relator's husband left the family home to prepare the resort for the May 15 opening of fishing season. Relator remained in the Minneapolis area with their 8-year-old son until the school term ended. Then relator voluntarily terminated her employment with Honeywell, and she and her son joined the husband at Northome. Relator and her husband jointly operated the resort through deer hunting season, and on November 20, 1967, relator, being unemployed, filed a claim for unemployment benefits at the local office of the Department of Employment Security at Bemidji, Minnesota. Relator appeals from the denial of her claim.
Unemployment benefits under Minn.St. c. 268 are intended to extend to those who through no fault of their own are involuntarily unemployed. Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co., 258 Minn. 541, 104 N.W.2d 876; Di Re v. Central Livestock Order Buying Co., 246 Minn. 279, 74 N.W.2d 518. Requirements for eligibility are set forth in § 268.08, while § 268.09 provides for the disqualification of certain otherwise eligible employees. The burden of proving that an eligible employee is disqualified under § 268.09 rests with the employer against whom the benefits would be charged. Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 Minn. 116, 125 N.W.2d 444. It is our policy to view the findings of the employment security commissioner most favorably upon review, and we will not disturb such findings where there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them. Olson v. Starkey, 259 Minn. 364, 107 N.W.2d 386.
The disqualification statute applied by the Department of Employment Security to this claim, § 268.09, subd. 1, reads in part as follows:
'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
'(2) If such individual * * * voluntarily discontinues her employment for the purpose of visiting or living with her husband, or assuming the duties of a housewife; provided that such disqualification shall be removed by subsequent employment in insured work for a period of not less than six weeks.'
1. The record offers sufficient evidence that relator voluntarily discontinued her employment with Honeywell to live with her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Berryman
...565 P.2d 1381 (1977); Gilman v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 28 Pa.Commw. 630, 369 A.2d 895 (1977); Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc., 286 Minn. 29, 175 N.W.2d 188 (1970); Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Board of Review, 413 Ill. 37, 107 N.E.2d 832 6 As pointed out by the court of appeals, ho......
-
Marz v. Department of Employment Services
...applicability of a disqualification provision (Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 289 Minn. 388, 184 N.W.2d 786 (1971); Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc., 286 Minn. 29, 175 N.W.2d 188 (1970))." Numerous other decisions are to the same effect. See, Kleinwachter v. Department of Employment Services, Minn., 2......
-
Johnson v. Ford Motor Company
...part: (a) The scope of review by this court of a decision of the commissioner of manpower services was stated in Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc., 286 Minn. 29, 175 N.W.2d 188. We there said that if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings of the commissioner, they will not be ......
-
Shreve v. Department of Economic Sec.
...them from coverage under the act. This the legislature may do, given a rational basis for its action. See, e. g., Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc., 286 Minn. 29, 175 N.W.2d 188 (1970); Eldred v. Division of Employment and Security, 209 Minn. 58, 295 N.W. 412 Affirmed. OTIS, J., took no part in the......