Lo v. Pye-Barker Fire & Safety LLC

Decision Date27 June 2022
Docket NumberA21-1650
CourtMinnesota Court of Appeals
PartiesJohn Lo, Relator, v. Pye-Barker Fire & Safety LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Connolly, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 46477395-3

John Lo, Isanti, Minnesota (pro se relator) Pye-Barker Fire &Safety LLC, Alpharetta, GA (respondent employer).

Keri A. Phillips, Anne B. Froelich, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department).

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.

CONNOLLY, Judge.

Pro se relator challenges the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his job without good reason caused by respondent-employer. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Pye-Barker Fire &Safety LLC (Pye-Barker) provides fire and life safety equipment and services such as fire alarms, fire suppression systems, and fire extinguishers. Relator John Lo began working for Pye-Barker's predecessor, Nardini Fire, as a fire alarm technician, but later moved to the shop where he serviced fire extinguishers by removing chemical powders from the extinguishers. Pye-Barker provided safety glasses, dust masks, and gloves to the shop technicians, and required them to be worn in order to prevent exposure to the chemicals. Pye-Barker also recently remodeled the shop room to improve ventilation by installing a utility fan.

Lo quit his job at Pye-Barker, claiming that the shop was not properly ventilated, which resulted in too much exposure to the chemical associated with the fire extinguishers. Lo subsequently established a benefit account with respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (department), and a department administrative clerk issued a determination of eligibility, which concluded that Lo quit for a good reason caused by the employer. Pye-Barker appealed that decision and, following a de novo hearing, the ULJ determined that the "work conditions were not a reason which would compel a reasonable employee to quit and become unemployed" because the "preponderance of the evidence shows that [Pye-Barker] provided personal protective equipment to minimize exposure," and "took steps to improve ventilation." The ULJ also found that Lo never complained about the conditions to his employer. Thus, the ULJ concluded that Lo was not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Lo requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed his decision. This certiorari appeal follows.

DECISION

Lo challenges the ULJ's decision that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit without good reason caused by his employer. "A quit from employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the employee's." Minn. Stat § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2020). "An applicant who quit[s] employment is ineligible for all unemployment benefits" unless he or she qualifies under one of the enumerated exceptions to ineligibility. Id., subd. 1 (2020).

One exception to ineligibility for unemployment benefits is if an applicant quit employment because of a good reason caused by the employer. Id., subd. 1(1). "What constitutes good reason caused by the employer is defined exclusively by statute." Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Minn.App. 2003). A good reason caused by the employer 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) (2020). "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 a good reason caused by the employer for quitting." Id., subd. 3(c) (2020).

"In unemployment benefits cases, we review the ULJ's findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Whether the applicant falls under an exception to ineligibility for quitting employment is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. Peppi v. Phyllis Weatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn.App. 2000); Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn.App. 2012).

Lo argues that the ULJ erred in concluding that he quit his employment without good reason caused by his employer because he quit his job "due to the excessive amount of chemical powder...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT