Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Black v. Tyco Integrated Security LLC

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

August 5, 2013

Ingeborg S. Black, Relator,
v.
Tyco Integrated Security LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 30046791-3.

Ingeborg S. Black, White Bear Lake, Minnesota (pro se relator).

Tyco Integrated Security, L.L.C., Columbus, Ohio (respondent Tyco).

Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Stauber, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge.

STAUBER, Judge.

This is a certiorari appeal from an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she does not fall within one of the statutory exceptions for quitting employment. Relator argues that the ULJ's decision is erroneous because (1) she quit for good reason caused by her employer and (2) her circumstances fall within the quit-for-a-better-job exception contemplated by Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(2) (2012). We affirm.

FACTS

In September 2011, relator Ingeborg S. Black began employment with Tyco Integrated Security (Tyco) as a full-time commission-only sales representative. Relator knew that the position was commission only when she began her employment, and during her three months of employment, relator earned approximately $1, 000 per month.

In December 2011, relator interviewed for a position at Macy's paying $10.00 per hour. According to relator, she was offered a job at the Macy's in Roseville on December 15, 2011, but was never given a start date. Relator then gave notice to Tyco on December 18, that January 3, 2012 would be her last day. When relator provided her notice, relator's employment was terminated immediately pursuant to Tyco's policy.

While relator was still employed with Tyco, but after she was purportedly offered a job at Macy's, the manager of the Roseville Macy's left. As a result, relator never worked for the Roseville Macy's. Instead, she "started talking to [the Macy's in] Maplewood" and eventually applied to that store in early January. But because her employment at Tyco had terminated and her prospective employment at the Roseville Macy's did not materialize, relator sought unemployment benefits from respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (department).

A department administrative clerk initially determined that relator is ineligible for benefits. Relator appealed that determination and, following a de novo hearing, the ULJ found that although relator gave notice of her intention to quit her employment effective January 3, 2012, she was discharged from employment on December 18, 2011, for reasons other than misconduct. Thus, the ULJ concluded that relator "is not denied unemployment benefits before the Sunday of the week of the intended date of quitting." But the ULJ also found that relator is "ineligible for the payment of unemployment benefits after that date" because a "preponderance of the evidence shows that [relator] did not quit her employment because of a good reason caused by the employer" and "does not show that [relator] quit her employment to accept other covered employment that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.