*1 scheme, in contradiction to regulatory Relator, JENKINS, Similarly, the class Cassandra J. rate doctrine. the filed Minneapolis Ry. & R.R. v. cites Sullivan Co., 142 N.W. 121 Minn. AMERICAN FINANCIAL EXPRESS regulation rate that a Minnesota
arguing CORPORATION, Respondent, right of a rate impair did not scheme under the common law to recover payer Employment Department of discriminatory rates. illegal, Development, Economic class’s reliance these two Respondent. persuasive is not because Minnesota cases Supreme the U.S. Court’s they predate No. A04-2308. they in and because do not Keogh decision Appeals of of Court Minnesota. challenges to reasonableness
involve filed properly with and legality or rates Sept. regulatory agency. Fur- approved thermore, Supreme Court’s Minnesota confirms policies
decision Morris rate the filed doctrine.
embodied arg-ues
Finally, the class if this doctrine, adopts the filed rate re-
court required for holders rental
mand is (RDP). The
dwelling policies class filed cannot apply rate doctrine RDP claims because an RDP is
the class’s or covering two-family form one- policy owned, occupied, by
dwellings disagree. The
policyholder. We district dismissed the RDP properly
court class’s 72A.20, Minn.Stat. subd.
claims because insurance,” to “homeowners’ applies Thus, dwellings.
and not rental MinmStat. 72A.20, cover RDP
claims.
DECISION private
Because the class has no cause
of action under the Unfair Claims Prac- Act, 72A.20,
tices
(2004), and the filed because rate doctrine claims, the
bars the district court class’s summary by granting judg-
did not err
ment in favor of Farm. State
Affirmed.
9Q9 Express Financial spondent American (employer). January Corporation In assaulting a nurse she was convicted of *3 being treated a ankle and while for broken jail. The days to in was sentenced was court the criminal matter district MacKinnon, Louis L. St. Katherine and, employed that relator con- aware was Park, MN, relator. for release sequently, committed her to work Corpora- Express Financial American to pursuant 631.425 Services, Inc., St. tion, TALX UCM c/o known as a law” work release. also “Huber MO, Louis, respondent. for begin was ordered her sentence Relator to Em- Holmes, Department A. Linda April on St. Development, and Economic ployment Relator states that she met with her Paul, MN, commissioner. respondent for Hansen, prior to supervisor, Joel twice explained and She April 18 her situation. by and decided Considered that told her that further states Hansen PETERSON, Presiding Judge; Express employ- HALBROOKS, “American had had other Judge; and STONEBURNER, release he would be ees do work and Judge. [that]
willing verify to and accommodate [relator] OPINION pur- release her for work poses.” respondent Both relator and HALBROOKS, Judge. that, agree reported at the to time challenges decision Relator workhouse, that her she understood judge senior-unemployment-review employer going cooperate was her (SURJ), affirming the unem- decision release. work (ULJ), judge was that she ployment-law presented Relator herself to corrections receiving unemployment disqualified at- April unsuccessfully officials on 18 and for discharged benefits because she was day, to contact next tempted Hansen the Although eligible relator was misconduct. verify employment. so that he could her under Minn.Stat. for work release (2002) every testified that Hansen She she called while she was incarcerat- week, day messages left ask- ed, multiple was found that her the ULJ employ- ing program him to call the verify to call and her work-release employment, her continued at- and had both a ment in order allow worker, tendance at work. Relator friend and social David failure employer’s Huberty, to call and call on relator’s behalf. Hansen relator, § 631.425 According under Minn.Stat. she reached Hansen occasion, to the not constitute fault attributable on one told that he would and, therefore, employee, her absence get Huberty to her. that he back stated from work under these circumstances “clearly outlining left Hansen voicemail af- should not constitute misconduct. We that all to do was make one [Hansen] had firm. to the to facilitate phone call [w]orkhouse [Huberty] ‘work
[relator’s] release!.’] FACTS at person left the name of the contact even person’s em- direct [w]orkhouse Relator Cassandra Jenkins by re- number.” ployed specialist phone as an insurance
9H 22, 2004, SURJ,1 April Hansen On sent relator who pursuant issued an order advising letter that she had been absent 2a(a) to Minn.Stat. April informing from work since 19 and (2004),2 declining to conduct further pro- not return on if she did to work ceedings and adopting findings of fact April would assume that decision as final. ULJ This voluntarily resigned. had letter she appeal certiorari follows. mention relator’s work release. report relator failed to
When ISSUE April discharged. she was Did by holding the SURJ err that rela- applied unem- subsequently *4 tor disqualified was receiving unem- benefits, ployment and an account was ployment on benefits based misconduct 15, opened August adjudica- 2004. An when employer relator’s failed to call to Department tor for the Em- Minnesota of purposes for of ployment and Economic Development Minn.Stat. § release under (department) found that relator dis- was (2002)? receiving qualified from benefits because discharged she was misconduct. Re- ANALYSIS appealed, telephone hearing
lator and a held was before a ULJ on 20. October appeal, On we review the deci appear The did not at hear- the sion of the SURJ rather than that of the ing or present any evidence. Labs., Inc., Valley ULJ.3 Weaver Minn. 131, 470 (Minn.App.1991). N.W.2d 133
The “un- ULJ found relator was of unemployment- standard review in available for work due to her incarcera- benefit cases is narrow. McGowan v. Ex “[although tion” and that was [relator] Enters., Express ecutive Transp. 420 eligible for work release under the Huber (Minn.1988). 592, N.W.2d 594 law, The factual her employer to call was findings of the SURJ are “viewed in and the to order light decision, most favorable to allow her the and if to attendance at eontinue[ ] reasonably tending there is evidence work.” The ULJ further found it to that was them, they sustain will be led disturbed.” conduct that to her incarcera- Ctr., 25, tion and v. Metro. Med. 332 that this conduct White N.W.2d “was intentional (Minn.1983). law, displayed clearly questions 26 of substantial lack of On we by employment.” conclusions, concern are not bound the Conse- SURJ’s quently, independent the concluded that our judg ULJ exercise own disqualified Pines, receiving unemploy- City ment. Market v. Circle 479 of (Minn.1992). ment appealed benefits. Relator then to N.W.2d 384 Whether an 1, 2004, August statutory Department 1. Effective title Employment of and Economic conducting of the proceed- 268.105, individual review Development. § Minn.Stat. subd. 268.105, ings § under Minn.Stat. 2 subd. 2a(a) (2004). procedure "applies This new (2004), changed unemploy- to "senior department all decisions issued on or judge.” Compare ment review Minn.Stat. [August 2004].” after 2004 Minn. Laws ch. 268.105, (2004), § with Minn.Stat. 183, § 268.105, (2002) (referring 2 subd. commissioner). representative of the course, when, here, adopts 3.Of as SURJ pursuant the decision of the ULJ to Minn. adopt permits 2. Minnesota law the SURJ to 268.105, 2a(a), Stat. subd. those decisions findings of fact and decision the ULJ as are identical. findings the final fact and of decision of 912 specific act is a first the ULJ5 committed by concluding Radis erred incarceration Scheunemann v.
question of fact. (Minn. Hotel, as a of law receipt 562 N.W.2d 34 bars of benefits matter son S. specific *5 (2) that demonstrates a sub no indication that the ULJ concluded “as a employee, or matter of that incarceration employ disquali- of concern the law” stantial lack 6(a) Id., (Supp.2003). receiving fies an from employee ment.” subd. On benefits. Instead, cases, unemployment department we do not the did what the appeal in Gru- it employee should shus court indicated that should do—it determine whether terminated, but the made a regarding have whether fact determination mis- been unemployment hearing, receive conduct. At the employee should Id. relator testi- Inc., Abbott Hosp., regarding v. NW fied the circumstances benefits. Ress sur- 519, (Minn.1989); rounding sentencing 523 and 448 see also her incarceration N.W.2d Outlet, Broadway § Liquor under Windsperger Minn.Stat. as well (Minn.1984) 142, promises as her (explain allegedly 346 143 made to Han- N.W.2d economic-security in ing findings the issue sen. of the ULJ also outline that facts, including [relator] cases not whether should have the relevant relator’s con- “is terminated, whether, incarceration, been but now that viction her claim and con- cerning duty she is she should be denied to call unemployed, employer’s to veri- fy unemployment compensation employment benefits as and the fact that the well”). so, employer did not do and her subse- inadvertently adopted findings office 4.The revisor's substituted Because the SURJ and ULJ, ‘'ineligible for” for the term "dis- term determination of the we review the 268.095, qualified § in Minn.Stat. from” ULJ's decision. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (Supp.2003). See Minn. subds. 268.095, 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (2002) § Stat. subds. supreme recognized, may 6. As the court there from”); "disqualified (using 2003 Minn. term unemployment be situations in which 3, 2, (mak- Spec. § art. Laws Sess. ch. 11 1st "fault,” employee's not result from the such 268.095, ing changes § to Minn.Stat. other illegally as when "an is detained 1, retaining "disqualified term subd. prosecuting may authorities or ... [when] he from”); Spec. Minn. Laws 1st Sess. ch. 2003 prosecution be released without or his inno- 3, (k) 20(j), (directing § revisor to art. Gmshus, finally cence determined.” [is] 257 "disqualified change term from” to "ineli- Minn, at at 520. 100 N.W.2d 268.095, gible only Minn.Stat. for” subd. and then to renumber subsection 268.085, 13b).
913
present for
discharge
required.
for absenteeism. Because
work as
But it
quent
in the record to
also
is evidence
reason-
true
did not call
there
ably
findings, we
relator
support
these
will
remained incarcerated
White,
Smith,
them.
332
at 26.
disturb
N.W.2d
unable
attend work. As in
disqualify
intend to
herself
from
Whether relator’s absence
Nonetheless,
receiving
benefits.
incarceration
work due to her
constitutes
incarceration, which,
conduct led to her
is a
question
misconduct
turn,
her absence.
It
caused
was this
Scheunemann,
at
law. See
N.W.2d
conduct that
the ULJ determined to be
(stating
specific
that whether
acts consti
“displayed
intentional and which
clearly a
law).
question
tute misconduct
In
is a
substantial
lack of
concern
[relator’s]
this,
such as
critical factor is
“[t]he
cases
employment.”
employee’s
whether the
behavior caused
implies
affirming
report
failure to
to work.”
[her]
Winkler
decision
SURJ’s
would fail
“effectuate
Serv., Inc.,
v. Park
361 N.W.2d
Refuse
public policy” underlying
unemploy-
general,
In
ab
(Minn.App.1985).
public
ment benefits. The
purpose
stated
resulting
sences
from “circumstances with
unemployment-insurance
of the
program is
employee”
in the control of the
are miscon
provide
benefits for “workers who are
previously
duct.
Id. We have
held that
unemployed through no
of their
fault
“[ajbsence from work due to incarceration
(2004)
own.” Minn.Stat.
for criminal acts is misconduct sufficient to
added). Here,
(emphasis
it cannot be said
disqualify
receiving
an
un
that relator bears “no fault” for her unem-
compensation
benefits.”
*6
ployment. Although the inaction of her
v. Am.
Chem. Dependency
Smith
Indian
role,
employer may
played
have
the fact
43,
343
46
Project,
Diversion
N.W.2d
engaged
remains that relator
the behav-
(Minn.App.1984).
is not
It
the incarcera
ior that led to her incarceration. Because
per
misconduct;
tion
se that constitutes the
ultimately
relator’s own actions
caused her
rather, the misconduct is the
from
absence
report
work,
failure to
her absence was
resulting
from criminal activities.
disqualify
misconduct sufficient
to
her
Id.;
Grushus,
176,
ee. But cases, we of these In each inapposite. in- actions led Because relator’s an to re carceration, which, cause for good found in turn caused her fail- work, prom breached a her absence was report ure to sign when disqualify sufficient misconduct agreement employment in an contained ise unemployment benefits. receiving conditions of the terms or “concerning her em- Contrary argument, to relator’s Corp., v. K-Mart Hayes employment.” duty no to call to ployer was under 550, (Minn.App.2003) 553-54 665 N.W.2d of work re- purposes Transp., Loxtercamp Krantz v. (citing (2002). under Minn.Stat. lease Inc., (Minn.App.1987); 410 N.W.2d Affirmed. Candy Shops No. Fanny Farmer Baker v. (Minn.App. 394 N.W.2d STONEBURNER, (dissenting). Judge (Minn. Sept. 1986)), review denied majori- from the respectfully I dissent
2003). Moreover, of these cases is in none of an ty’s conclusion that failure misconduct on the any indication of there verify employment, prevented which re- employee. part of the privi- exercising work-release lator nothing Here, alleged promise had court, consti- leges granted by a district or conditions” of the “terms to do with tutes misconduct. importantly, More employment. relator’s to a term A defendant who sentenced necessitating prom- circumstances jail, “lockup” or county in a workhouse and, own actions from relator’s ise resulted privileges, may permitted be work-release above, ultimately caused her as discussed judge’s discretion. Minn.Stat. within Although to work. we report failure to (2002). 631.425, If a defendant employ- actions of the cannot condone the regularly granted work release has been er, duty under no to call and it was arrange “the sheriff for a employed, shall employment. As the Colorado insofar as continuation of under similar cir- Appeals stated Court of interruption.” possible without cumstances, (2002). purpose “[T]he *7 to allow continued or of work release is any requirement of are unaware [w]e employment, which can benefit not new in a work employer participate that an (or only primarily) even a defendant but in order to allow em- program release family, a victim owed restitu- the inmate’s during pe- ployees to continue to work tion, court, society generally....” a a incarceration. Absent such riods of Nordby, Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. requirement, perceive we no basis to (3d ed.2001). Practice Minnesota an upon employer fault impute employer The held that relator’s ULJ separation from work employee’s verify call and rela- was not incarceration. caused his But does employment. tor’s the record Appeals Indus. Claim Smith v. Office of support employ- the assertion that the Colorado, 817 P.2d the State call, required place only er was a Accordingly, (Colo.Ct.App.1991). called, had to employer, who was by concluding not err rela- SURJ did employment. Although the record is not misconduct dis- tor’s actions constituted developed employer well because the receiving unemploy- qualifying part hearing, appears not take in the it only place asked to employer compensation. ment employer call failed to an- because Marriage In Leyla re the TARLAN, swer calls made relator’s behalf. petitioner, Appellant, Respondent that an duty participate has no “to in work re- responsi- and that relator is lease” because SORENSEN, Respondent. Alan being for the act that in her
ble resulted sentenced, resulted in sentence No. A04-2257. work, being unavailable for she has disqualified committed misconduct and is Appeals Court of of Minnesota. receiving unemployment benefits. But the statute not in- Sept. work-release any “participation” volve an work A release. defendant either
employed employed granted or not when An employer release. is not re-
work than
quired anything to do other
employment. judge in this case al- release, apparently because
lowed employed
relator was when she was sen-
tenced. The sheriff was mandated to ar-
range for continuation of her possible interruption.
insofar as without I employer’s thwarting
would hold that the by failing verify employ-
of work release
ment, thereby making un- work, should result in
able attend that the employee engaged
determination
in misconduct. certainly
An employer may at-will termi-
nate an employee’s employment being crime,
convicted of a and such termi- may in a
nation result determination that was terminated for miscon- But
duct. was not
terminated for her She conviction.
terminated because the made it
impossible advantage for her to take of an
important provided by tool correctional
legislature imposed by judge in
this case. notes court in supreme acts con Gru But whether App.1997). law, Co., Mfg. a question Mining shus v. Minn. & stitute misconduct novo. Id. de at 34. Minn. 100 N.W.2d did not which review we disqualification establish a se rule of per are employees discharged When whenever an is incarcerated. misconduct, they are dis for employment Indeed, the Grushus court stated that the receiving unemployment qualified from department responsibility bears the benefits.4 making a fact determination each case law, Minnesota em (Supp.2003). Under conduct, regarding employee’s whether an intentional, “any misconduct is ployment incarceration, including leading conduct conduct, on or off negligent, or indifferent inability caused his or her to work.6 Id. at (1) job that evinces serious violation 176, 100 at 520. N.W.2d of behavior of the standards reasonably Contrary argument, of the to relator’s there is right expect has the