Lamont P. Mays, Relator v. Rosenbauer Motors, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-2119
Lamont P. Mays,
Relator,
vs.
Rosenbauer Motors, LLC,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed August 10, 2015
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32791666-3
Lamont P. Mays, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Rosenbauer Motors, LLC, Wyoming, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Dennis D. Evans, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Chutich,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator requests reversal of the decision of an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. He
argues that he quit his employment due to a good reason caused by the employer. We
affirm.
FACTS
In December 2012, relator Lamont P. Mays began working for respondent
Rosenbauer Motors LLC (Rosenbauer), which builds fire trucks, cabs, and chassis.
Relator was initially hired as a temp, but became a full-time employee in February 2013.
He was hired as a painter, but ended up primarily doing paint prep work because he did
not consistently perform well on painting projects. He had a difficult working
relationship with some of his coworkers. In January 2014, a coworker, T.J., made several
racist and offensive comments to relator. Management was notified and T.J. was fired
the next day.
Relator also had a strained relationship with Troy Mickelson. At some point
during relator’s employment Mickelson was promoted and became relator’s supervisor.
In July 2014, relator filed a harassment complaint against Mickelson. Shannon Huberty,
the HR Manager, investigated the harassment allegations, interviewed various employees,
and issued a written report. She concluded that the allegations of harassment were
unfounded, but issued a four-page report that included recommendations on how to
improve communication between relator and Mickelson, addressed other complaints
2
made by relator, and committed to monitoring the situation and reassessing it in the
following months. Relator felt the investigation and response to his complaint were
inadequate and quit.
Relator applied for unemployment benefits, and respondent Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that he was
eligible. Rosenbauer appealed the determination, arguing that relator did not have a good
reason to quit his employment. Following a telephone hearing, the ULJ determined that
relator quit for reasons other than a good reason caused by the employer and is ineligible
for benefits. Relator requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence. The
ULJ determined that the new evidence did not warrant a new hearing and affirmed the
decision that relator is ineligible for benefits. Relator appeals.
DECISION
When reviewing a ULJ’s eligibility decision, we may affirm, remand for further
proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator have
been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are affected by
an error of law or are unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.
7(d)(4)-(5) (2014). Factual findings are viewed in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s
decision, and we will not disturb them if they are substantially supported by the evidence
in the record. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
An applicant for unemployment benefits is ineligible for benefits if he quit his
employment, unless he quit “because of a good reason caused by the employer.” Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2014). To qualify for this exception, the reason must be
3
(1) directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible;
(2) adverse to the employee; and (3) one that would compel an average, reasonable
employee to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in employment. Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2014). If the applicant was subjected to adverse working
conditions he must complain to his employer and “give the employer a reasonable
opportunity to correct the adverse working conditions before that may be considered a
good reason caused by the employer for quitting.” Id., subd. 3(c) (2014). Whether an
employee had a good reason to quit caused by the employer is a question of law,
reviewed de novo. Rowan v. Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. App. 2012).
But the reason an employee quit is a question of fact. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty Air, Inc.,
393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing a determination of the reason an
employee quit as a fact question). The conclusion that an employee did not have a good
reason to quit must be based on factual findings supported by substantial evidence.
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006).
Relator argues that he had a good reason to quit caused by the employer because
he was subjected to racial harassment and unfair treatment from his coworkers. The ULJ
determined that relator “did experience some racist comments,” but that management
handled the issue in a reasonable manner when it promptly fired T.J. after learning of the
comments. The ULJ found that relator’s remaining complaints were not racially
motivated but were due to “human interaction within normal personality differences.”
The ULJ also found that Rosenbauer’s investigation into relator’s complaint was
competent and that the outcome was reasonable.
4
The record substantially supports the ULJ’s finding that relator quit because of a
personality conflict with Mickelson. It is clear from the record that relator had a problem
with Mickelson’s leadership style. But these concerns do not amount to a good reason
for quitting. “Irreconcilable differences with an employer do not constitute ‘good cause’
to quit, nor does mere dissatisfaction with working conditions.” Ryks v. Nieuwsma
Livestock Equip., 410 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1987). Relator’s complaints can
fairly be characterized as irreconcilable differences with Mickelson and dissatisfaction
with his working conditions. Relator felt that Mickelson had a short temper and took
issue with Mickelson calling himself relator’s “boss.” However, Mickelson was relator’s
supervisor and had supervisory authority over him. Relator was also dissatisfied because
he thought Mickelson should have been written up on various occasions. But during the
hearing the production manager testified that discipline was not made public, and at least
one of the incidents that relator felt should have resulted in Mickelson getting written up
did in fact result in Mickelson getting punished more severely than relator. The record
makes it clear that relator and Mickelson had many disagreements, but none constituted a
good reason for quitting.
Many of relator’s other complaints reflect dissatisfaction with his working
conditions. He felt that he was not receiving the level of training he had expected. He
also felt that Mickelson treated him unfairly by only enforcing the company’s no-earbuds
policy against him and punishing him for refusing jobs by making him sweep and clean
various areas. Being asked to and choosing to comply with a company policy is not a
good reason to quit. And Mickelson testified that relator was asked to sweep and clean
5
after refusing to do a sanding job because cleaning was the only other job available that
night. The paint shop supervisor also testified that general cleaning was the only other
assignment available that night, and that relator is not the only employee who was
assigned general cleaning projects. While relator perceived this as a punishment for
refusing the sanding job, the paint shop supervisor testified that assigning relator the
cleaning job was the only alternative to sending him home early, which would have
decreased his pay. Relator may have been dissatisfied with being asked to clean and told
not to wear earbuds, but these are not good reasons to quit his employment.
On appeal, relator argues that Mickelson also made racist comments to him.
However, the ULJ found that, while relator experienced racist comments made by T.J.,
those comments ceased after T.J. was fired. The record substantially supports this
finding. Also, Huberty, the HR manager, testified that any alleged inappropriate or racist
comments made by Mickelson were “never brought to [her] attention.” Huberty stated
she was aware of the comments made by T.J. that resulted in him being fired, but not any
statements made by Mickelson. She stated that relator’s complaint against Mickelson
focused on his yelling, inconsistent enforcement of company policies, and unclear
directives on job assignments. Her report responds to these concerns. Dan Kellogg, the
production manager, similarly testified that relator’s complaints about Mickelson were
never based on racial harassment. Further, apart from the comments attributed to T.J.,
relator’s remaining allegations made during the hearing are vague and not attributed to
6
specific coworkers.1 The record supports the ULJ’s determination that relator quit
because of a personality conflict with Mickelson, not because of racial harassment by
him.
Finally, an applicant who is subjected to adverse working conditions must
complain to his employer and give the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the
conditions before such conditions may be considered a good cause for quitting. Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3. The ULJ determined that Huberty’s investigation into relator’s
complaints produced a reasonable result. The report recommended that the no-earbud
policy be reviewed so that all employees would understand it and that job assignments be
posted in advance so the employees would have a better understanding of what was
expected of them. It also outlined what relator would have to do to transfer to a different
shift, which relator had requested. As noted above, it appears that relator never
complained during his employment that he was being subjected to racial harassment from
Mickelson. Thus, Rosenbauer responded reasonably to the alleged adverse conditions it
was made aware of and was never given an opportunity to address the allegations of
racial harassment by Mickelson. Therefore the conditions cannot be considered good
cause for quitting.
1
During the hearing relator attributed one specific statement to Mickelson, but stated that
it “wasn’t racially motivated.” Relator included some specific incidents in his briefs on
appeal, but these incidents were not mentioned during the initial hearing and therefore are
not part of the record. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the
trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the
record on appeal in all cases.”).
7
In sum, relator did not have a good reason caused by his employer for quitting and
is ineligible for benefits.
Affirmed.
8