that paid more and was more permanent left with good cause); Schafer v. Ada Co. Assessor, 111 Idaho 870, 872, 728 P.2d 394, 396 (1986) (holding that a claimant who leaves a job with a firm offer of employment from another employer has left with good cause); Pazzaglia v. Review Board of Indiana Dep't of Employment and Training Servs., 608 N.E.2d 1375, 1376 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993) (discussing Indiana Code 22-4-15-1, which mandates that an individual not be disqualified for unemployment benefits for quitting one job to take a better job, so long as they work at the new job for at least 10 weeks); Loeb v. Employment Appeal Board, 530 N.W.2d 450, 451-52 n. 1 (Iowa 1995) (discussing Iowa Code, section 96.5(1)(a), which mandates that where an individual leaves a job "in good faith for the sole purpose of accepting better employment, which the individual did accept and such employment is terminated by the employer . . . the individual . . . shall be eligible for [unemployment] benefits . . . ."); Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe, 415 N.W.2d 432, 434 (1987) (Minn. Stat. Section 268.09, subd. 1(2)(a) (1984) "provides an exception to the voluntary quit disqualification where an individual discontinued employment 'to accept work offering substantially better conditions of work or substantially higher wages or both.'"); Rider College v. Board of Review, Dep't of Labor Indus., 167 N.J. Super. 42, 48, 400 A.2d 505, 508, (1979) (holding that leaving a job to accept a "substantially more favorable position" was leaving with good cause and not a disqualification for unemployment compensation benefits); Young v. Tortilla Flats, 37 Ohio App.3d 41, 41-42, 523 N.E.2d 519, 520 (1987) (holding that pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann., section 4141.29, an individual who resigns from one job to accept a better-paying position constituted a quit with just cause); Mascorro v. Employment Division, 70 Or. App. 531, 535, 689 P.2d 1326, 1328 (1984) (holding that leaving work for an offer of a better job was a potentially valid reason for leaving a job); Top Oil C
Our decision in Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe confirms this plain-language conclusion. 415 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. App. 1987). In Hackenmiller, the applicant for unemployment benefits had quit her employment intending to accept a job offer for other employment.
An employee will not "receive benefits if he voluntarily discontinued his employment with the 'mere possibility' of accepting work offering substantially better conditions or substantially higher wages." Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe, 415 N.W.2d 432, 434 (Minn. App. 1987). Here, relator admitted at the hearing that, at the time she quit, she had not accepted the offer from Macy's.
But an employee will not "receive benefits if he voluntarily discontinued his employment with the `mere possibility' of accepting work offering substantially better conditions or substantially higher wages." Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe, 415 N.W.2d 432, 434 (Minn. App. 1987). Lehn's wages increased from $13.13 an hour at Someplace Safe to $15 an hour at Ink Monkey. But Lehn's workweek decreased from 40 hours at Someplace Safe to 20 hours at Ink Monkey.
In conclusion, an employee's problem with transportation "is usually considered the problem of the employee," in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Hill, 307 Minn, at 358, 240 N.W.2d at 316 (holding that employee's quit because of lack of transportation for a particular shift was not good cause to quit attributable to the employer); see Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe, 415 N.W.2d 432, 434 (Minn.App. 1987) (holding that employee's quit, which was caused, in relevant part, by transportation problems because the distance between her home and workplace "made travel difficult during periods of inclement weather," was not a good cause to quit attributable to the employer); see also Preiss v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec, 347 N.W.2d 74, 76 (Minn.App. 1984) (concluding that a position was not rendered unsuitable for applicant merely because it required her to drive 22 miles and that she thus did not show good cause for refusing suitable work). Werner's quit because the additional 17 miles added one way to her commute, along with her increased cost, was a transportation problem that is not attributable to the employer.