 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edward v. Sentinel Management Co.6/6/2000
that his reason for resigning was a "good reason" as defined by Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3. Because the reason arose from a work-related injury, Edward contends that it was directly related to the employment. Edward further contends that a reasonable person would have accepted the settlement and resigned.
Sentinel and the commissioner argue that the circumstances of this case are analogous to those present where an employee receives incentives for early retirement. In Kehoe v. Minnesota Dep't of Econ. Sec., 568 N.W.2d 889, 890 (Minn. App. 1997), the employee accepted a bonus for participating in an early retirement program. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner's representative that the employee did not quit with good cause, holding:
When an employee has the choice of remaining employed or voluntarily resigning and receiving a bonus, the termination of his employment is without good cause attributable to his employer. Kehoe, 568 N.W.2d at 891.
In so holding, this court adopted the reasoning in a decision of the identical issue made by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Id. at 890-91. The Michigan court held that accepting early retirement benefits and resigning did not constitute good cause. McArthur v. Borman's, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 32, 37 (Mich. App. 1993). The court focused on the purpose of unemployment benefits, i.e., to assist those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and the fact that the employees could have rejected the incentives and continued working. Id. at 36.
Absent from the early retirement cases, as well as the present case, is some form of compulsion. To constitute a good reason, the reason must "compel" the employee to quit. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(2). As the supreme court has recognized, "there must be some compulsion produced by extraneous and necessitous circumstances." Ferguson v. Department of Employment Serv., 311 Minn. 34, 44 n.5, 247 N.W.2d 895, 900 n.5 (1976).
In the present case, Edward had two viable options. He could resign and take the settlement offer. Or, he could reject the offer, continue working, and continue to pursue his workers' compensation claim. Edward admits that he was able to perform his employment duties. In fact, he continued to work for Sentinel up through, and even one month past, his date of resignation. Moreover, Edward does not argue that he felt economically coerced into accepting the settlement terms. Instead, he said that he "needed to get away from the worker's comp situation because it was causing stress on marriage" and because he "could not deal with Lisa, the [workers' compensation] case worker."
"A good personal reason does not equate with good cause." Kehoe, 568 N.W.2d at 891 (quoting McArthur, 505 N.W.2d at 37). As with Michigan's Employment Security Act, our reemployment compensation statutory scheme is intended to benefit those who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Erb v. Commissioner of Econ. Sec., 601 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Minn. App. 1999). Considering the facts of this case, the analogy to cases involving incentives for early retirement is well-reasoned. Edward had the option of remaining employed or resigning and chose the latter for personal reasons that were only indirectly related to his employment. Accordingly, we hold that Edward did not have good reason for quitting caused by his employer.
DECISION
The commissioner's representative did not err by concluding that Edward did not have good reason to quit his employment and that he was disqualified from receiving reemployment benefits.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|