Eric Young, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0126

Eric Young,
Relator,

vs.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed September 5, 2017
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35043631-3

Eric Young, St. Cloud, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, Keri Phillips, Department of Employment and Econ omic Development,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent DEED)

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent employer)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Relator Eric Young challenges the determ ination of an unemployment-law judge
(ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit employment without
good reason caused by the employer. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator worked as an electronics sales a ssociate for Wal-Mart. This job required
him to work in the electronics department, occasionally cover other departments, and use
the back room of the store to order new produc ts or retrieve stock. A few months after
beginning work, relator developed concerns about his lack of training, understaffing at the
store, and safety issues because of clutter in the back room. Relator raised these concerns
in a series of four meetings with store management from March 2016 through October
2016. After his final meeting with a manager, relator quit his position, stating that he did
so because of a combination of safety, staffing, and training issues. He also stated that he
“needed” to find a position that was more suited to his training as a computer programmer.
Relator applied for unemployment benefits.
The Minnesota Department of Employmen t and Economic Development (DEED)
determined that relator was not eligible for unemployment benefits because he did not quit
for a good reason caused by the employer. DEED determined that relator quit due to his
disagreement with his work tasks or his employer’s evaluation of his job performance and
that this disagreement did not have a substantial negative effect on relator that would cause
the average reasonable worker to quit.

3
Relator appealed. Following a hearing before a ULJ, at which relator and one of his
former managers testified, the ULJ found that safety reasons were only a small factor in
relator’s decision to quit and that relator qu it because he became “worn out and stressed”
by the job and because of the lack of appreciation from his employer. The ULJ concluded
that this was not a good reason to quit and become unemployed, and affirmed DEED’s
determination that relator was not eligible for unemployment benefits. Relator requested
reconsideration of the ULJ’s decision. On re consideration, the ULJ affirmed the earlier
determination, finding that th e evidence was insu fficient to demonstrate that a genuine
safety threat existed at the time relator quit.
This certiorari appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
An applicant who quits employment is ineligible for unemployment benefits unless
a statutory exception applies. Minn. Stat . § 268.095, subd. 1 (2016). The exception
relevant to this case is that an applicant is eligible for unemployment benefits if he “quit
the employment because of a good reason caused by the employer.” Id., subd. 1(1). A
“good reason” to quit is one that is “directly related to the employment and for which the
employer is responsible,” adverse to the a pplicant, and “would compel an average,
reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the
employment.” Id., subd. 3 (2016). The reason for quitt ing must be “one that is real, not
imaginary, substantial, not trifling, and reasonable, not whimsical.” Hein v. Precision
Assocs., Inc., 609 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted).

4
Relator argues that he quit because of his safety concerns and that the ULJ erred by
finding that safety concerns were only a small part of the reason he quit. He also argues
that the ULJ erred in determining that sa fety was not an ongoing issue based on the
testimony of his former manager.
The reason an employee quit is a factual determination. See Beyer v. Heavy Duty
Air, Inc., 393 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (reviewing the reason for separation
from employment as a fact question). We revi ew a ULJ’s factual determinations “in the
light most favorable to the decision and give deference to the cred ibility determinations
made by the ULJ.” Neumann v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 844 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn.
App. 2014) (quotations omitted). We “will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the
evidence substantially sustains them.” Id. (quotation omitted).
The record supports the ULJ’s finding that relator quit for reasons other than his
concerns about safety. During an exit interview, relator wrote that he quit because of a
“combination of repeated safety , staffing and training issues,” and he wanted to find a
position that fit his skill set as a computer progr ammer. At the hearing, relator testified
that he decided to quit after finding a project he had worked on discarded behind a counter,
feeling that the incident highlighted the lack of training he had received. Relator also
testified about bringing his sa fety concerns regarding clutte r in the back room to his
managers multiple times.
Reviewing the record and fact ual determinations in the li ght most favorable to the
ULJ’s decision, the record supp orts the ULJ’s findings that relator quit for a variety of
reasons, of which safety concer ns were, at most, a small factor. The record substantially

5
supports the ULJ’s factual determination that safety concerns were not the primary reason
relator quit.
Relator also argues that the ULJ erred by finding that safety issues were only a
sporadic concern. Relator argues that his having had to inform his managers about clutter
blocking exits in the back room on multiple o ccasions proves that safety was an ongoing
concern.
When considering whether a worker has good reason to quit because of safety
concerns, a ULJ must look at “the information known to the employee at the time” he chose
to quit. Haskins v. Choice Auto Rental, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 507, 511 (Minn. App. 1997). If
an employee complains about fears of working conditions and receives an “expectation of
assistance,” the employee must continue to complain if the conditions persist. Id. At the
hearing, relator’s former manager testified th at he walked through the back room with
relator during their final meeting, and that the exits were not then blocked. Relator did not
testify to the contrary or otherwise challenge this evidence. While relator may be correct
that the safety concerns existed multiple times in the past, because the record supports the
ULJ’s factual finding that the safety concerns had been resolved at the time he quit, relator
has failed to show that he had good reason to believe that he had reasonable safety concerns
when he quit. The record supports the ULJ’s determination that relator did not have a good
reason to quit due to his safety concerns.
We affirm the ULJ’s conclusion that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.