Hackenmiller v. Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe

5 Citing cases

  1. Total Audio-Visual Systems, Inc. v. Department of Labor

    360 Md. 387 (Md. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Reviewing whether an unemployment benefits claimant's departure from an employer for a higher-paying position qualifies as "good cause"

    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

  2. Dehoop v. Minn. Dep't of Pub. Safety

    A14-0606 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2014)

    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.

  3. Black v. Tyco Integrated Sec. LLC

    A12-2109 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2013)

    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.

  4. LEHN v. SOMEPLACE SAFE

    No. A10-457 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010)

    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.

  5. Werner v. Medical Professionals LLC

    782 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that an employer's relocation from Bloomington to St. Paul, resulting in an increase of 34 miles and 50 minutes in the relator's 170-mile round-trip commute from her home in Good Thunder and denial of relator's request to work from home for part of the week was not adverse to relator and did not constitute good cause to quit attributable to employer

    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.