Marz v. Department of Employment Services

• Citation: 256 N.W.2d 287
• Decision Date: 01 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 47103,47103
• Parties: Lisa MARZ, Relator, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent, University of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics, Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 287

256 N.W.2d 287

Lisa MARZ, Relator, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Respondent University of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics, Respondent.

No. 47103.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 1, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the Minnesota Employment Services Law an employer has the burden of proving that an employee has voluntarily terminated employment and is thus disqualified for benefits under Minn.St. 268.09.

2. Once the employer has proven the employee voluntarily terminated his employment the employee, to be eligible for benefits, has the burden of proving that he voluntarily terminated his employment for good cause attributable to the employer.

3. Voluntary termination of employment by an employee on the basis of racial discrimination constitutes "good cause attributable to the employer" under Minn.St. 268.09.

Daniel R. Shulman and Stephan J. Snyder, Minneapolis, Branch NAACP Legal Redress Committee, Minneapolis, for relator.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Allyn, Sol. Gen., Peter C. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank W. Levin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Dept. of Emp. Services.

R. Joel Tierney, University Atty., John E. Diehl, Associate, Minneapolis, for Univ. of Minn.

Heard before TODD, MacLAUGHLIN and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

YETKA, Justice.

Review on writ of certiorari to the Department of Employment Services of a decision of its commissioner denying the relator's application for unemployment benefits. We reverse and remand.

This appeal presents two issues:

(1) Once an employee is found to be otherwise eligible for benefits under the Minnesota Employment Services Law, whether the employer or the employee has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee falls within one of the disqualifications of Minn.St. 268.09.

(2) Whether voluntary termination of employment by an employee on the basis of racial discrimination constitutes "good cause attributable to the employer" under Minn.St. 268.09.

Lisa Marz (Marz) began working for the University of Minnesota Hospitals (hospital) as a medical technologist on November 4, 1974. Seven months later she terminated her employment, giving racial discrimination as the reason. When she sought unemployment benefits, the hospital claimed the voluntary quit exemption under Minn.St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). ¹

A claims deputy for the Department of Employment Services found the exemption applied. Marz appealed the decision to the department's appeal tribunal and a hearing was held. The tribunal placed the burden of persuasion with respect to disqualification for benefits on Marz. In part, the tribunal stated:

"The claimant has failed to show a good cause attributable to the employer for the voluntary separation from work.

"Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing the tribunal concludes that the claimant has not shown that she was discriminated against by her supervisor during the course of her employment." (Italics supplied.)

Subsequently Marz appealed to the commissioner of employment services. The commissioner adopted the findings of the tribunal and denied the appeal, stating:

"In the instant case the employer contended and the claimant agreed that she had voluntarily discontinued her employment. The burden is on the claimant to prove that she had good cause for doing so. The claimant has not sustained this burden." (Italics supplied.)

On this review by certiorari, Marz contends the Department of Employment Services incorrectly placed the burden on her to prove she terminated her employment for good cause attributable to the employer. ²

This court repeatedly has stated that the employer has the burden of proving disqualification of otherwise eligible employees. Most recently, in Ykovchick v. Public Schools of Minneapolis, Minn., 251 N.W.2d 626, 628 (1977), this court stated:

"* * * It is the rule in Minnesota that * * * the employer has the burden of proving the 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., 234 N.W.2d 822, 824, note 2 (1975); Lumpkin v. North Central Airlines, Inc., 296 Minn. 456, 459, 209 N.W.2d 397, 400 (1973); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., 289 Minn. 388, 403, 184 N.W.2d 786, 796 (1971); Kantor v. Honeywell, Inc., 286 Minn. 29, 31, 175 N.W.2d 188, 190 (1970); Adelsman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 Minn. 116, 123, 125 N.W.2d 444, 449 (1963).

In support of an opposite rule, the department relies on two decisions, Fannon v. Federal Cartridge Corp., 219 Minn. 306, 18 N.W.2d 249 (1945), and Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc., 288 Minn. 432, 181 N.W.2d 701 (1970). Neither case, however, is in point. The Fannon decision was decided prior to the consistent recent holdings of this court. The Lewis decision merely concluded that the hearing officer need not make detailed findings whether there was "good cause"; it did not change the burden of proof.

It is apparent to us that the legislative intent with respect to Minn.St. 268.09 was to provide that when an employee voluntarily...