McNeilly v. Dept. of Employ

57 Citing cases

  1. Stang v. Ind. Sch. Dist. #047

    No. A22-1651 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2023)

    To be eligible to receive unemployment benefits, an applicant must meet all the ongoing eligibility requirements in Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1 (2022). See McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 710-11 (Minn.App. 2010). Amongst other requirements, applicants must be "available for suitable employment" and "actively seeking suitable employment." Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4)-(5).

  2. Appolon v. Mentor Mgmt., Inc.

    A17-1951 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that a malfunctioning phone did not constitute "good cause" for failing to participate

    But Appolon did not submit this information to the ULJ in her reconsideration request, and this court cannot consider information that was not submitted to the ULJ. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01; McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 709 n.1 (Minn. App. 2010). DEED asserts that Appolon was sent, along with the notice of the hearing, an "APPEAL HEARING GUIDE—PREPARE FOR YOUR TELEPHONE HEARING," which included instructions to call a specific number if the ULJ does not call within ten minutes of the start of the scheduled hearing time.

  3. James v. Minn. Dep't of Transp.

    A15-0051 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 8, 2015)

    The issues of whether an applicant is available for, and actively seeking, suitable employment are factual determinations. Goodman v. Minn. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 312 Minn. 551, 553, 255 N.W.2d 222, 233 (1977) (availability); McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 711-12 (Minn. App. 2010) (actively seeking). James argues that the ULJ erred by not making express findings as to what constitutes "suitable employment" for her and clearly erred by finding that she was not available for suitable employment.

  4. Strowbridge v. Maid in Am., Inc.

    A14-0161 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2014)

    An unemployment-law judge's findings of fact are viewed in the light most favorable to the decision, and we defer to the unemployment-law judge's credibility determinations. McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2010). The purpose of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program is to provide "workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own a temporary partial wage replacement to assist the unemployed worker to become reemployed."

  5. In re White

    No. A23-1211 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2024)

    To be eligible for unemployment benefits, an applicant must meet all the ongoing eligibility requirements in Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1 (2022). McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 710-11 (Minn.App. 2010). Applicants must be "available for suitable employment" and "actively seeking suitable employment."

  6. In re Chee Vue

    No. A22-0875 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Goodman v. Minn. Dep t of Emp. Servs., 255 N.W.2d 222, 223 (Minn. 1977) (availability); McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp. &Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 711-12 (Minn.App. 2010) (actively seeking)

  7. Johnson v. Osd Transp.

    A17-1253 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2018)

    This court defers to the ULJ's credibility determinations. McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2010). Whether an act committed by an employee constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law that we review de novo. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344.

  8. Haub v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.

    A13-1986 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2014)

    Whether an applicant was actively seeking suitable employment is a factual determination. See McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 711-12 (Minn. App. 2010) (discussing the evidence necessary to sustain a finding that an applicant was not actively seeking employment). This court "review[s] the ULJ's factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision."

  9. Bennett v. Castle Kitchen Corp.

    A13-1671 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 27, 2014)

    Whether the applicant is available for and actively seeking suitable employment is primarily a factual determination. Goodman v. Minn. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 312 Minn. 551, 553, 255 N.W.2d 222, 223 (1977); see McNeilly v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 712 (Minn. App. 2010). As discussed below, the unemployment-law judge's determination is substantially supported by evidence in the record.

  10. Dixon v. Unicare Home Health Servs., Inc.

    A12-2348 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2013)

    The questions of whether an applicant is available for, and actively seeking, suitable employment are factual determinations. Goodman v. Minn. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 312 Minn. 551, 553, 255 N.W.2d 222, 223 (1977) (availability); McNeillyv. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 711-12 (Minn. App. 2010) (actively seeking). This court reviews the ULJ's factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings as long as the evidence substantially sustains them. Grunow, 779 N.W.2d at 580.