Morris v. Casino, No. A04-1256 (MN 7/12/2005), A04-1256.

• Decision Date: 12 July 2005
• Docket Number: No. A04-1256.,A04-1256.
• Parties: Elvira J. Morris, Relator, v. Firefly Creek Casino, Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

Elvira J. Morris, Relator, v. Firefly Creek Casino, Respondent, Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

No. A04-1256.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

July 6, 2005.

Filed July 12, 2005.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

Appeal from the Department of Employment and Economic Development, File No. 2399 04.

Elvira J. Morris, (pro se relator).

Leif E. Rasmussen, Steffens & Rasmussen, (for respondent employer).

Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, (for respondent commissioner).

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge

Relator Elvira Morris challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she voluntarily quit her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. Because the record supports the decision, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator quit her employment as human-resources director for the Prairie's Edge Casino Resort, f/k/a Firefly Creek Casino (the casino). Relator was initially granted unemployment benefits based on a determination that she left employment for good cause attributable to her employer because the casino failed to conduct a timely 90-day employment review. The casino appealed, claiming that relator quit due to the casino's termination of relator's nephew's employment the day before relator quit.

At a telephone hearing conducted by an unemployment law judge, relator gave a number of reasons for leaving her employment. She stated that she was discriminated against because some employees received a 90-day review but she did not, and some managers had received moving expenses for relocating to a new facility but she had not. Relator explained at the hearing that the discrimination she complained of was not due to her membership in a protected class. Relator also complained that the new general manager had a condescending attitude toward her and her HR experience and did not consult her when he fired her nephew. She also complained about management's failure to adopt the new personnel-policy manual she had been working on and urging the board of trustees to adopt. Relator also stated that after her nephew was fired she could no longer afford to remain at the casino because she and her nephew combined their income to meet expenses.

The ULJ held that relator is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit her job for other than a good reason caused by employer. The SURJ affirmed, and this appeal by writ of certiorari followed.

DECISION

This court reviews the record to determine whether it reasonably supports the decision of the SURJ.¹ Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995) (reviewing decision of commissioner's representative). The SURJ's findings are a mixed question of law and fact. Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). This court defers to the SURJ's findings of fact if the record reasonably supports them. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). This court also defers to the SURJ's determinations regarding witness credibility and conflicting evidence. Jenson v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 617 N.W.2d 627, 631 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2000). "The issue of whether an employee had good reason to quit is a question of law reviewed de novo." Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000). An employee seeking unemployment compensation has the burden of proving good cause to quit. Haskins v. Choice Auto Rental, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 507, 510 (Minn. App. 1997).

An employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if the employee quits, unless the employee quits for "a good reason caused by the employer." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2002). "Good reason" to quit is a reason "directly related to the employment . . . for which the employer is responsible" and "is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a)(1), (2) (2002). See also Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 268, 271 (Minn. App. 1995) (holding that an employee lacks good cause to quit when the "average, reasonable person, when faced with a similar choice, would have chosen to remain employed"). Additionally, if "an applicant was subjected to adverse working conditions by the employer, the applicant must complain to the employer and give the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the adverse working conditions before that may be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(b).

An employee may quit for good cause when an employer substantially changes the conditions of the employment. See, e.g., Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 418-19 (Minn. App. 2003) (explaining that the statutory language providing that "substantial adverse change in the wages, hours, or other terms of employment by the employer shall be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting unless the change occurred because of the applicant's employment misconduct" is unambiguous) (alteration in original). Additionally, this court has held that when an employer breaches a term of an employment agreement, good reason to quit exists. See, e.g., Hayes v. K-Mart Corp., 665 N.W.2d 550, 552-53 (Minn. App. 2003) (concluding employer's breach of promise to give employee raise constituted good cause to quit), ...