From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
By Mark Wolski
May 9 — A former security guard can collect unemployment benefits because she never quit her job but instead asked for time off while she resolved her family's homelessness, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.
Nita Posey's text messages to both her employer, Securitas Security Services USA Inc., and its client, U.S. Bank, indicated her desire to return to her position once her family crisis had passed, the court said. The decision to end her employment came from her employer, the court found.
Jeffrey M. Markowitz, Posey's attorney, told Bloomberg BNA May 9 that the ruling may not be groundbreaking for unemployment benefit cases, but it is important for another reason: The court recognized that an employer that doesn't object to a worker's request for time off can't use that request as a notice that the worker is quitting.
The ruling should allow Posey to claim benefits unless Securitas and the state Department of Employment and Economic Development ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the case, Markowitz said.
Posey had been working for Securitas for about six months in 2015 when she and her family were evicted from their home. She called and wrote text messages to Securitas to say she would be absent from work.
An official from U.S. Bank, Posey's assigned workplace, later called her and said she was expected to meet attendance requirements.
While Posey said she would meet those requirements, she called and texted Securitas and U.S. Bank the next day to tell them that she would be absent again because she was overwhelmed by her housing situation and her children's needs. Her messages indicated she would contact both once her situation had calmed down.
Days later, Posey received notice from Securitas that she had quit her job. She was told to return her uniforms and access badges.
DEED originally held that Posey was discharged for absenteeism, which amounted to misconduct. However, a state unemployment law judge later held that she quit her Securitas job and therefore was ineligible for benefits.
The appellate court wrote that unemployment benefit decisions on quitting are guided by Shanahan v. Dist. Mem'l Hosp., 495 N.W. 2d 894 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). The court in Shanahan said the test for determining if an employee has voluntarily quit is whether the worker “directly or indirectly exercises a free-will choice to leave the employment.”
DEED said Posey had acknowledged quitting her work for U.S. Bank, but Posey denied leaving her job, the court said. She said she told both Securitas and U.S. Bank that she needed time to address her family crisis. Further, Posey was not employed by U.S. Bank, the court said.
There was no evidence that Securitas ever told Posey anything that would lead her to believe that leaving the U.S. Bank site would result in her ending her employment, the court said in an opinion written by Judge R.A. (Jim) Randall and joined by Judges John R. Rodenberg and Carol Hooten.
There was also no evidence that Securitas ever told Posey that leaving a client for personal reasons would be seen as quitting the company, it said.
Markowitz said the ruling did not come as a surprise. The court did the right thing by examining the record and finding that a worker who had fallen on hard times had given appropriate notice that she needed time off to address her personal situation, he said.
Markowitz is with the firm of Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala P.A.
Lee B. Nelson represented DEED. A department spokeswoman said the agency is still reviewing the ruling. No attorney information was available for Securitas.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Wolski in St. Paul, Minn., at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Posey_v_Securitas_Sec_Servs_USA_Inc_No_A151576_2016_BL_146707_Min.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)