James Duffy, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-0288

James Duffy,
Relator,

vs.

Aitkin Auto Group, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 28, 2017
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 34871074-3

Shawn B. Reed, Maki & Overom, Ltd., Duluth, Minnesota (for relator)

Aitkin Auto Group, Inc., Aitkin, Minnesota (respondent)

Lee B. Nelson, Keri A. Phillips, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Connolly,
Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is
ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his job without a good reason caused
by his employer. Because the record supports the ULJ’s decision, we affirm.
FACTS
Relator James Duffy, then about 52, began to work for respondent Aitkin Auto
Group, d/b/a Brandl Chevrolet & Buick, Inc. (Brandl), as a full-time, commissioned
salesman in 2012. He was subordinate to the finance manager (FM), the sales manager
(SM), and the on-site manager (OSM). Although relator was occasionally reprimanded in
an angry or hostile manner by FM, relator did not ever report any of these incidents.
In 2015, relator walked off the job when he did not receive a bonus to which he
thought he was entitled. He received a written warning telling him that walking off the job
when he was upset was not acceptable.
In the summer of 2016, Brandl opened a call cente r to collect and channel phone
and internet sales leads. Relator felt that he was not getting his fair share of the sales leads
and that SM was responsible for this.
On July 25, 2016, a customer who had been approved for credit to purchase a truck
arrived shortly before closing time. Relator permitted the customer to test -drive a truck
without relator being in the truck, violating a practice that he said was highly recommended
but not mandatory. SM overheard FM yell an obscenity at relator and ask why he wasn’t
on the test drive. The situation escalated to the point where relator said, “Then you sell
3
cars,” threw some window cleaner and towels on the floor, said to SM, “Tell [FM] to go to
hell,” and left with the keys to a truck. SM texted relator about the keys; he brought them
back and then went home. Because this was the second time relator had walked off the
job, SM suspended him without pay until August 1, 2016.
Relator did not return to work on that date. SM texted him, asking if he was coming
to work; relator asked her what time they were meeting with him and said he would like a
copy of his personnel file. When relator arrived, SM and OSM met with him. Relator was
told that walking off the job when he was upset was not acceptable, but also t old that SM
understood relator needed “time to process [the incident]” and wanted to “do the right thing
to help [relator] out.” SM and OSM offered relator three alternatives to resolve the matter:
either they would meet with FM, or they would meet with FM and relator, or relator could
meet with FM on his own. Relator said he would meet with FM on his own. At the
conclusion of the meeting, SM expected relator to return to work in the next day or two.
Relator did not return to work on August 2 or 3 ; he did not meet with FM; and he
did not tell SM or OSM that he had decided not to meet with FM. FM called relator and
went to relator’s house, but relator did not answer the phone or open the door. SM texted
relator to ask what his timeframe was. Relator responded that he “[didn’t] feel comfortable
nor appreciated to return, ” that FM’s “verbal abuse” of relator on July 25 was “uncalled
for” and relator did the “only thing [he] could do and removed [him]self from the hostile
situation” and that SM “put the wrong person on unpaid leave.”
SM texted that she was treating relator’s text as a resignation and asked him to write
a letter of resignation. He replied that he was “not resigning,” he believed the unpaid leave
4
“was unjustified,” he was seeking legal advice from the State Employee Labor Board, and
he felt his rights had been violated. SM texted back that, if relator was not resigning, he
needed to follow the proper procedure, i.e., appear the next day at 8:00 a.m.; she said Brandl
wanted to “work through this” and “offered to help with a resolution.” Relator replied that,
on the following day, he would contact a person in human resources (HR) and give his
reasons for not returning to work. He also asked SM to stop FM from coming to relator’s
home and calling relator.
On August 5, relator quit his employment. He texted HR that: (1) he didn’t “feel
comfortable working in the hostile environment allowed by the management”; (2) FM’s
verbal abuse was “rude and disrespectful” and relator had done “the only thing [he] felt
[he] could do . . . [when he] went home”; (3) the decision to put relator on u npaid leave
“was unjustified”; (4) relator felt in his heart that he could not return; (5) relator had lost
his respect for the management; (6) relator felt his employee rights under Minnesota labor
laws had been violated; and (7) relator wanted his person nel file and his monthly sales
numbers to be mailed to him.1
When Brandl learned that relator had applied for unemployment benefits, it reported
to respondent Department of Employment and Economic development (DEED) that relator
had quit his employment and had not made Brandl aware of any problems with work.
DEED denied relator’s application for unemployment benefits, and relator challenged the
denial.

1 In this text message, the only reason relator gave for quitting was the incident with FM
and Brandl’s response to it.
5
Following a te lephone hearing, the ULJ issued a finding that relator quit his
employment without a good reason caused by his employer and a decision that he was
therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. In response to relator’s request for
reconsideration, the ULJ issued an order of affirmation.
Relator petitioned for certiorari review of the ULJ’s decision. He argues that he had
a good reason caused by his employer for quitting his job.
D E C I S I O N
When an applicant for unemployment benefits quits employment, whether any of
the ten exceptions to ineligibility for benefits applies is a question of law and is reviewed
de novo. Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000);
see Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2016) (providing an exception where the applicant
quit because of a good reason caused by the employer). Relator argues that he is eligible
for benefits because he had a good reason caused by his employer for quitting.
A good reason caused by the employer is a reason “that is directly related to the
employment and for which the employer is responsible, ” that is adverse to the employee,
and “that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed
rather than remain in the employment. ” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3 (2016). This
reasonable-person standard is objective, not subjective; it refers to the average worker, not
the hypersensitive worker. Werner v. Med. Prof’ls, LLC , 782 N.W.2d 840, 843 (Minn.
App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Aug. 10, 2010). Adverse working conditions are not a
good reason caused by the employer unless the employee has complained of the conditions
and given the employer an opportunity to correct them. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(c).
6
Relator testified that three adverse working conditions caused him to quit: (1) the
hostile environment resulting from FM’s temper tantrums; (2) the new call center not
directing enough customer calls and leads to relator; and ( 3) fear of repercussions if he
made negative reports about FM, who was responsible for the hostile environment, and
SM, who was responsible for the call center. But relator’s testimony makes it clear that he
did not complain of any of these conditions or give Brandl an opportunity to correct them.
The ULJ questioned relator.
Q: [S]o before you quit did you ever go to [SM] or [the call
center person] or [HR] with this concern about the
distribution of the leads or no[?]
A: On August 1 [after my suspension] I mentioned it when
I was meeting with [OSM] and [SM] and they made it
clear to me that they had lost confidence in me because
. . . my delivery process was not good[.]2
. . . .
Q: . . . Are you talking about reporting [FM] or someone
else [?]
A: Well it would be [SM] for distributing the leads, that’s
discriminating to me. [FM] for his temper tantrums that
I can’t take. . . .
Q: . . . I’m trying to figure out your third reason why you
left. And you said reporting a manager, reporting [SM]
or [FM]. . . . Did you in fact report them to somebody
or no [?]
A: That’s the problem, to who would I report ’em to cause
they were the staff, they were the leaders, the managers.
. . . .

2 SM testified that, at the August 1 meeting, relator “admitted . . . that he did not do a very
good job of thoroughly covering the new vehicle which is a requirement of our
manufacturer to go over certain things with customers.” The ULJ found that, on the i ssue
of the sales leads, “[SM’s] testimony was more credible than [relator’s] testimony because
it was based on firsthand knowledge (she was involved in the distribution of call center
leads), was specific, was a reasonable explanation of what occurred und er the
circumstances, and was supported by text messages.”
7
Q: . . . [A]re you trying to say . . . you didn’t report [SM]
or [FM] because you didn’t know who to report to
because they were your superiors, right[?]
A: Exactly, yes.
Q: And because of that you felt like you had no option but
to quit, right.
A: Yes.
Q: . . . You did not report them to anyone, I mean is that
fair to say that [?]
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, for example you did not report them to [HR?]
A: I did not.
Q: Okay, and you did not report them to . . . [OSM],
right[?]
A. Did not.
. . . .
Q: [D]id [SM and OSM] say anything to you or . . . was
there any kind of agreement for example, [“relator],
we’re gonna talk to [FM?”] . . . . Did anything like that
happen or no[?]
A: No, I chose, I was the one who said I would talk to [FM].
But then the more I thought about it, . . . they’re a . . .
management team and if they would have talked to him
it would have gone nowhere. I was gonna talk to him
but then he kept calling me and he’d show up at my
house uninvited. I decided that was it [;] I’m not gonna
talk to him.
. . . .
Q: [Y]ou agreed that you would talk to [FM] yourself, is
that what happened[?]
A: Yes I said I would but the more I thought about it I’m
not gonna.
Q: Okay, so you never talked to [FM] about it, right [?]
A: Nope.
Q: Okay, and then . . . the understanding between yourself,
[SM] and [OSM] was that you were gonna talk to [FM],
not them right [?]
A: Correct.
. . . .
Q: . . . Did you at any point let either [SM] or [HR] know
. . . that you didn’t want to speak with [FM] after all[?]
A: I did not.

8
The ULJ concluded that relator had not given his employer an opportunity to correct
the adverse working condition caused by FM because he refused the offer of SM and OSM
to talk to FM, he said he wanted to talk to FM himself, he rejected FM’s efforts to contact
him b y phone and by coming to his house, and, without telling SM, OSM, or HR, he
changed his mind and decided not to talk to FM himself. Thus, relator eliminated the
possibility of his employer being able to correct the adverse work condition of which he
complained.
Relator does not cite any cases in which an employee who did not give the employer
an opportunity to correct an adverse work condition was found to be eligible for benefits.
The cases on which he relies , Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg ., 720 N.W.2d 590 (Minn.
App. 2006) and Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. , 430 N.W.2d 4 (Minn. App. 1988) , are
distinguishable because they concerned employers that were given an opportunity to
correct the adverse condition. In Nichols, an employee had endangered the applicant for
benefits with a forklift ; that employee was given verbal warning s, but these proved
ineffective. 720 N.W.2d at 596. In Wetterhahn, the employer failed to apply its graduated
disciplinary procedure to an employee who harassed the applicant. 430 N.W.2d at 5. Here,
relator explicitly told those who volunteered to deal with FM that he did not want them to
do so; he wanted to confront FM himself.
Relator did not meet the requirement of giving his employer an opportunity to
correct adverse working conditions; therefore, the adverse working conditions were not a
9

good reason caused by his employer for quitting. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095 , subd. 3(c).
The ULJ correctly determined that relator is ineligible for benefits.
Affirmed.