Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC
2013 Minn. App. LEXIS 65
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Relator van de Werken separated from Bell & Howell on May 21, 2012 and negotiated a severance package that ultimately totaled eight weeks of wages ($29,218.46).
- Severance payments began September 6, 2012, in biweekly installments, while van de Werken simultaneously established a DEED unemployment-benefits account and received $597 weekly beginning May 20, 2012.
- DEED determined on September 24 that van de Werken was ineligible for benefits from September 2 to November 27 because of severance payments, which led to an overpayment of benefits identified at $4,776 after ULJ proceedings.
- The ULJ concluded severance pay applied to May 20, 2012–July 12, 2012, resulting in ineligibility for those weeks, and denied reconsideration of the overpayment.
- Van de Werken argued the period of severance-pay ineligibility should be eight weeks (the actual severance term he would have received), not the period for which he was not yet paid, and that the statute should be construed in his favor as a remedial unemployment-benefits scheme.
- This court remands to recompute benefits, holding the ULJ erred by applying severance-pay ineligibility to weeks immediately following separation when no severance was being paid during that period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance-pay ineligibility can apply to weeks after separation when severance was not being paid. | van de Werken contends only the eight-week severance period should affect eligibility. | DEED argues eligibility should be limited to the period during which severance is paid. | ULJ erred; remand for recomputation |
Key Cases Cited
- Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.2011) (unemployment benefits must be construed in light of remedial nature and narrow statutory interpretation)
- Irvine v. St. John’s Lutheran Church of Mound, 779 N.W.2d 101 (Minn.App.2010) (unemployment compensation remedial; benefits awarded where possible)
- Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519 (Minn.1989) (statutory interpretation de novo for eligibility issues)
- American Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn.2000) (plain-language interpretation when statute unambiguous)
- Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn.App.2006) (review of ULJ findings with deference to credibility determinations)