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.

Amin v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

November 4, 2013

Leila Amin, Relator,
v.
Nordstrom, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 30475913-3.

Leila Amin, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator).

Nordstrom, Inc., c/o TALX UCM Services Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent).

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

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.

CONNOLLY, Judge

In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) conclusion that she quit her employment and is ineligible for unemployment insurance. Because we see no error in the ULJ's decision, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator Leila Amin worked for respondent Nordstrom Inc. from January 26, 2012 until October 27, 2012. After her separation from Nordstrom, she applied for unemployment insurance and on December 3 respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) issued a determination of ineligibility. On December 5, relator appealed DEED's determination. The ULJ heard the appeal on December 19.

At the evidentiary hearing, relator testified that she worked for Nordstrom as a full-time housekeeper and was responsible for cleaning the bathrooms and vacuuming the floors. In September 2012, Nordstrom asked her to clean the carpets, but she did not want to because she did not think it was one of her duties and because she believed that doing so would exacerbate preexisting back pain.

On September 21, relator told Peggy Lalopoulos, a Nordstrom human resources representative, that she was unable to clean the carpets because of her back pain. Lalopoulos testified that she told relator that in order to receive a work accommodation, relator needed to provide medical documentation of her injury but that Nordstrom would not require her to clean the carpets while she sought it. Relator, however, disagreed with Lalopoulos's account and testified that "[n]o, they didn't give me a week for accommodation, they give me hard, all time, every day they were calling me to say you have to do this and I told them that I didn't have medical insurance card."

Relator scheduled a doctor appointment for November 1 and informed Lalopoulos of this appointment on October 8. Lalopoulos responded that because Nordstrom had already been accommodating her since September 21, relator needed to schedule an earlier appointment. Lalopoulos testified that a few days later, relator informed her that she had not yet attempted to schedule an earlier appointment. Relator again disagreed with Lalopoulos's account and testified that she had tried to make an earlier appointment but "was trying to get a cheaper medical deal" because she did not have medical insurance. At the end of their second conversation, relator gave Lalopoulos her two week notice of resignation.

Relator's last day working for Nordstrom was October 27, 2012. Lalopoulos testified that relator did not have to resign, that she could have continued working through her November 1 doctor appointment, and that if she had done so without rescheduling, ...


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.