Proudfoot v. Wellbridge Club Management, Inc., No. A05-2492 (Minn. App. 1/9/2007)

• Decision Date: 09 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. A05-2492.,A05-2492.
• Citation: Proudfoot v. Wellbridge Club Management, Inc., No. A05-2492 (Minn. App. 1/9/2007), No. A05-2492. (Minn. App. Jan 09, 2007)
• Parties: Elizabeth L. Proudfoot, Relator, v. Wellbridge Club Management, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

Elizabeth L. Proudfoot, Relator, v. Wellbridge Club Management, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

No. A05-2492.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed January 9, 2007.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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. 11659 05.

Elizabeth L. Proudfoot, (pro se relator)

Wellbridge Club Management, Inc., (respondent employer)

Linda A. Holmes, Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Minge, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SHUMAKER, Judge

Relator challenges the unemployment law judge's decision disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits, arguing that the judge erred by finding that she quit without good reason caused by the employer, and that the judge conducted the hearing improperly. Because we find that the unemployment law judge did not err by finding that relator quit her job without good reason caused by the employer, and that there was no impropriety in the hearing, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator Elizabeth Proudfoot worked as a massage therapist for respondent Wellbridge Club Management, Inc. After receiving various work-related complaints about Proudfoot, two club managers, one male and one female, met with Proudfoot to discuss her job performance.

The female manager left the meeting several times to attend to other matters, leaving Proudfoot alone with the male manager. Proudfoot alleges that the male manager sexually harassed her while they were alone by telling her to uncross her arms and legs, and to use her body to attract customers. The male manager denied making those specific comments, but admitted to commenting on her defensive body language during the meeting.

After another meeting and various phone conversations with club management, Proudfoot sent Wellbridge a letter ending her employment. She stated in her letter that it was too difficult to return to Wellbridge because of the stress of the recent events.

Proudfoot then applied for unemployment benefits, and a Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) adjudicator found that she was qualified to receive benefits. Wellbridge appealed and a hearing was held before an unemployment law judge (ULJ). Although Wellbridge failed to provide a witness list before the hearing, the ULJ did not postpone the hearing because Proudfoot agreed to proceed.

Based on the evidence presented, the ULJ found that Proudfoot quit her employment without good reason caused by the employer, and was therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits. Proudfoot filed a request for reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed his decision. This certiorari appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

This court will reverse a ULJ's decision when it reflects an error of law, is "arbitrary or capricious," or the findings are "unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005).¹ Minnesota courts have defined "substantial evidence" as "(1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) more than a scintilla of evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any evidence; or (5) the evidence considered in its entirety." Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn. 2002).

This court defers to the ULJ's determinations regarding witness credibility and conflicting evidence. Skarhus v. Davanni's, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). "When the parties have presented conflicting evidence on the record, this court must defer to the [ULJ's] ability to weigh the evidence; we may not weigh that evidence on review." Whitehead v. Moonlight Nursing Care, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 350, 352 (Minn. App. 1995).

1. Voluntary Quit

Proudfoot argues that she was "constructively discharged" and did not quit. The distinction is significant because an employee who voluntarily quits is generally disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2004). A discharged employee, on the other hand, is only disqualified from receiving benefits if the discharge was for misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2004).

A quit occurs "when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employees." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2004). A discharge 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." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 5(a) (2004).

The record fully supports the ULJ's finding that Proudfoot quit her employment. Wellbridge management never indicated to Proudfoot that she could not continue working at Wellbridge. On the contrary, the communications between Wellbridge and Proudfoot dealt with expectations for her continued employment at the club. Moreover, Proudfoot's letter to Wellbridge and her testimony show that it was her decision not to return to work. Therefore the record supports the ULJ's decision that Proudfoot voluntarily quit. The next issue is whether, despite quitting, Proudfoot is still entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

2. Quit For Good Reason Caused By Employer

Proudfoot argues that she was forced to quit because Wellbridge created a hostile work environment, subjected her to sexual harassment, and breached her employment contract.

An employee who voluntarily quits is still entitled to unemployment benefits if the decision to quit is the result of a good reason caused by the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1). Whether an employee quit for good reason caused by the employer is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Minn. App. 2003). A good reason to quit is a reason directly related to employment, and for which the employer is responsible; it is adverse to the worker; and it is significant enough that it would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2004).

For example, an employee generally has good cause for quitting if the employer substantially reduces pay or unreasonably changes the terms of employment. Rutten v. Rockie Int'l., Inc., 349 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. App. 1984). But an employee does not have a good reason to quit if there are irreconcilable differences with the employer, or if the employee is simply frustrated or dissatisfied with the working conditions. Ryks v. Nieuwsma Livestock Equip., 410 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1987). "The standard for determining good cause is that standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive." Erb v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 601 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Minn. App. 1999) (quotation omitted).

Proudfoot argues that Wellbridge created a hostile work environment during her meetings with management, forcing her to quit. The evidence supports the ULJ's finding that Wellbridge's assessment of Proudfoot's job performance does not constitute a good reason for quitting caused by the employer. The record does not show that the managers acted unreasonably in addressing concerns over Proudfoot's work. Additionally, the criticism directed toward Proudfoot's job performance, as well as comments about her attitude, would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain in the employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a). Any frustration or dissatisfaction that Proudfoot felt over the comments is not a good reason to quit. See Ryks, 410 N.W.2d at 382.

Proudfoot also argues that a Wellbridge manager subjected her to sexual harassment and that other managers failed to adequately investigate her claims, forcing her to quit. Sexual harassment qualifies as a good reason for quitting caused by the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(f) (2004). The employer must have been aware, or should have been aware, of the sexual harassment, and failed to take timely and appropriate action. Id. The statute defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, [or] sexually motivated physical contact . . . ." Id. Sexual harassment includes other conduct or communications of a sexual nature when the employment is conditioned upon the employee's submission, the employee's submission to or rejection of the harassment is the basis for decisions affecting employment, or the harassment substantially interferes with the employee's work or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Id.

Whether one engaged in the actions underlying the sexual harassment claim is a question of fact. Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc., 509 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Minn. App. 1993). But whether such actions constitute sexual harassment under the statute is a question of law....