Rowan v. Dream IT, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A11–1135.,A11–1135. |
| Citation | 812 N.W.2d 879 |
| Parties | Heather ROWAN, Relator, v. DREAM IT, INC., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
When an employer in the construction industry encourages its employee to resign her employment and form a limited liability corporation (LLC), but does not inform the employee that she will no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits once she does so, the employer's failure to so disclose constitutes good reason to quit caused by the employer under Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2010).
Heather Rowan, Frazee, MN, pro se relator.
Dream It, Inc., Detroit Lakes, MN, respondent.
Lee B. Nelson, Amy R. Lawler, Department of Employment & Economic Development, for respondent DEED.
Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, Presiding Judge; STONEBURNER, Judge; and CLEARY, Judge.
Relator Heather Rowan appeals the decision issued by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determining that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits and finding overpayment of benefits in the amount of $5,544. Rowan argues that she was given good cause to quit her job because respondent-employer Dream It, Inc. encouraged her to form her own limited liability company (LLC), without informing her of the negative consequences of giving up her employment status. We reverse.
Rowan was an employee of Dream It, a licensed general contractor, for more than four years, from September 2006 until November 2010. She worked primarily as a painter, handling interior and exterior painting and staining, but she also helped with various other projects. In January of 2009, Rowan was temporarily laid off and received unemployment benefits. On November 9, 2010, Rowan formed her own LLC and continued to work for Dream It as an independent contractor.
Rowan formed her LLC at the suggestion and encouragement of Jim Herman, her immediate supervisor, and with the approval of Jeff Boehm, the vice president and co-owner of Dream It, after her hours had been reduced. One advantage of forming an LLC that Rowan discussed with Dream It was a change in how her pay would be calculated. As an independent contractor, her pay would be calculated by the square footage of the areas she painted rather than by the hours she spent working. The new payment calculation would make up for the wages she was losing due to her reduced hours.
Rowan submitted her self-supplied insurance forms to Dream It, as required by all subcontractors working for Dream It, on November 9, 2010. Dream It then wanted Rowan to sign a letter of resignation, although she would continue to come in to work each day and do the exact same work she had done previously, and Rowan complied.1 After forming the LLC, Rowan worked on jobs for Dream It for approximately four more weeks, until the first week of December 2010. On December 9, 2010, she refused a job offered by Dream It because she thought the square footage and payment amount were improperly calculated. Subsequently, Dream It did not offer Rowan any further work, and at the time of the hearing, she had not worked for anyone else since incorporating her LLC.
Rowan applied for unemployment benefits and the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that she is ineligible.2 She appealed the determination and a telephone hearing was held with the ULJ. Following the hearing, the ULJ issued a decision determining that Rowan is eligible for unemployment benefits. The ULJ stated that Rowan was an employee rather than an independent contractor because she did not hold an independent contractor exemption certificate pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 181.723, subd. 4 (2010). The ULJ found that Rowan quit her position at Dream It on December 9, 2010. The ULJ further found that Rowan quit her position for good reason caused by Dream It under Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a).
The ULJ determined that Rowan quit because Dream It offered her only $180 worth of work for the week of December 9, 2010, which was a 60% reduction in her weekly earnings. In applying Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a), the ULJ found that Rowan's weekly earnings were directly related to her employment with Dream It; that Dream It was responsible for finding enough work for Rowan to make sufficient weekly earnings; and that the decrease in earnings was adverse to Rowan. As a result, the ULJ found that an average reasonable employee would quit in that situation, and therefore Rowan quit for good reason caused by her employer.
Dream It appealed the decision and filed a request for reconsideration. The ULJ issued a decision upon reconsideration, determining that Rowan is ineligible for unemployment benefits and finding an overpayment of benefits amounting to $5,544. The ULJ reversed the previous finding that Rowan was an employee and ruled instead that neither she nor the LLC she had formed was an employee of Dream It. In addition, the ULJ affirmed the previous finding that Rowan quit, but changed the resignation date from December 9, 2010, to November 9, 2010, the day Rowan signed her resignation letter and incorporated her LLC. The ULJ then reevaluated whether Rowan quit for good reason caused by Dream It on November 9, 2010.
Despite his previous findings, the ULJ determined on reconsideration that Rowan did not quit for good reason caused by Dream It, but “quit so that she could work under the auspices of her own LLC because she believed doing so would allow her to earn more and work less.” Because the ULJ ruled that Rowan did not have good reason to quit caused by Dream It, she was deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits and was ordered to repay unemployment benefits in the amount of $5,544. This appeal follows.
Did the ULJ err when he determined that Rowan had not quit her employment for good reason caused by Dream It?
“This court may reverse or modify the ULJ's decision if the substantial rights of a petitioner may have been prejudiced because, among other things, the decision is affected by an error of law or is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted.” Nelson v. Levy, 796 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Minn.App.2011). Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn.App.2006) (citations omitted).
The Minnesota unemployment insurance program
is remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits. Any legal conclusion that results in an applicant being ineligible for unemployment benefits must be fully supported by the facts. In determining eligibility or ineligibility for benefits, any statutory provision that would preclude an applicant from receiving benefits must be narrowly construed.
Minn.Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2010).
Rowan was an employee of Dream It from September 2006 until November 2010. She signed a letter of resignation at the request of her employer on November 9, 2010, incorporated her LLC, and continued working for Dream It doing the same work but no longer as an employee. The ULJ determined that Rowan ceased being an employee of Dream It beginning on November 9, 2010. In doing so, the ULJ relied on the holding in Nelson, 796 N.W.2d at 336. In that case, this court determined that “[u]nder the current statutory scheme for determining whether a construction worker is an employee or an independent contractor, we conclude that an LLC is not an employee of another entity.” Id. at 343. The court based its reasoning on the language of Minn.Stat. § 181.723, subds. 1(d), 3 (2010), which specifies that only an individual, defined as a human being, can be considered an employee.
Consequently, Rowan cannot claim to be an employee of Dream It after November 9, 2010, because the clear language of the law as interpreted by this court in Nelson precludes such a claim. Rowan can be an employee of her LLC, but the LLC cannot be an employee of a general contractor like Dream It. However, that decision is not determinative as to whether Rowan had good cause to quit.
In his final decision, the ULJ stated that Nelson “rendered the undersigned's previous decision in this case legally incorrect, and mandated a reversal of that decision.” We disagree. While Nelson did render the ULJ's earlier decision incorrect as to Rowan's status as an employee after forming the LLC and resulted in a change in the date of resignation from December 9, 2010, to November 9, 2010, it did not mandatea finding that Rowan lacked good cause to quit her employment.
Did the ULJ err when he determined that Rowan had not quit her employment for good reason caused by Dream It?
Rowan argues that Dream It gave her good reason to quit her position when Herman encouraged her to form an LLC but failed to inform her of the consequences of giving up her employment status. The ULJ held that Rowan did not have good reason caused by her employer because she quit to earn more money and work fewer hours. The ULJ determined that Dream It was not responsible for this decision. We disagree.3
“Whether an employee had good cause to quit is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc., 696 N.W.2d 799, 800 (Minn.App.2005), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005); see also Rootes v. Wal–Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Minn.App.2003).
Good cause is defined as:
A good reason caused by the employer for quitting is a reason:
(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible:
(2) that is adverse to the worker; and
(3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.
Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a). “The definition of a good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Earthsoils, Inc., No. A11–693.
-
Kimble v. Empire Beauty Sch.
...App. 2005) (concluding that ongoing sexual harassment by the employer-owner constituted good reason to quit); Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. App. 2012) (employer encouraging employee to resign and form LLC without informing her of the consequences amounted to good reason to ......
-
Fay v. 5 Star Field Servs. LLC
...subd. 3(a) (2012). Whether an employee had good cause to quit is a question of law, which we review de novo. Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. App. 2012). But the reason why an employee quit employment is a factual question determined by the ULJ. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Ai......
-
Stoltz v. SMSC Gaming Enters. Mystic Lake Casino
...Whether an employee had a good reason to quit caused by the employer is a question of law, reviewed de novo. Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. App. 2012). The reason an employee quit, however, is a question of fact. Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc., 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.......