Lillian L. Morris, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1027

Lillian L. Morris,
Relator,

vs.

Unity Health Care,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 12, 2018
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35549369

Lillian L. Morris, Kansas City, Missouri (pro se relator)

Unity Health Care, Minneapolis, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, Craig M. Gustafson, De partment of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
In this unemployment-insurance appeal , relator Lillian Morris challenges the
decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment
benefits. Morris contends that the ULJ e rred in determining that she voluntarily quit
without meeting any of the exceptions allowing individuals to quit their jobs and still obtain
benefits. We affirm.
FACTS
Morris began working for respondent Unity Health Care in 2003. On January 2,
2017, Morris gave Unity notice that she was quitting to move to Kansas City, Missouri, in
order to provide aid to an ill sister. After giving notice, Morris continued working at Unity
through the end of March.
On April 5, Morris applied for unemploym ent benefits from respondent Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic De velopment (DEED). At the time Morris
applied for benefits, she was looking for wo rk in Missouri and willing to begin working
immediately. On April 14, DEED determined that Morris is ineligible for benefits.
Morris appealed that determination, a nd a hearing was held before a ULJ on
May 10. Morris and one of Unity’s office managers testified. After the hearing, the ULJ
confirmed the ineligibility determination. Morris filed a request for reconsideration, noting
that her direct supervisor at Unity was “o k with [Morris] receiving . . . unemployment
[benefits]” and requesting that the ULJ receiv e testimony from that supervisor. After
considering Morris’s request, the ULJ concluded that “it is unlikely that additional

3
testimony would change the outcome of the decision” because “Morris’ employer does not
decide whether she is eligible for unempl oyment benefits,” and affirmed the prior
ineligibility determination without hearing additional testimony.
This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Morris argues that she never would ha ve stopped working and moved had she
known she would not receive unemployment benefits. However, Morris does not contest
any of the ULJ’s factual findings. “If the rele vant facts are not in dispute, we apply a de
novo standard of review to th e ULJ’s interpretation of the unemployment statutes and to
the ultimate question whether an applicant is eligible to receive unemployment benefits.”
Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Minn. App. 2015).
Unemployment benefits in Minnesota are g overned by statute, and a right to benefits
exists only if the employee meets th e requirements of the statute. See Wilson v. Mortg.
Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 458 (Minn. 2016). Individuals who quit their employment
are ineligible for unemployment benefits unless they fall within an exception to the general
bar. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (Supp. 20 17). As relevant here, those exceptions
include:
(1) the applicant quit the employment because of a good
reason caused by the employer as defined in subdivision 3;

. . . .

(7) the applicant quit the employment . . . (ii) in order to
provide necessary care becaus e of the illness, injury, or
disability of an immediate family member of the applicant.

4
Id., subd. 1(1), (7)(ii) (emphasis added). A reason is “caused by the employer” when it is
a reason “directly related to the employment an d for which the employer is responsible.”
Id., subd. 3(a)(1) (Supp. 2017). An “immediate family member” is defined as a “spouse,
parent, stepparent, grandparent, son or daughter, stepson or st epdaughter, or grandson or
granddaughter.” Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 19a (2016).
Here, it is uncontested that Morris qu it her employment. Therefore, Morris is
eligible for benefits only if she meets one of the statutory exceptions to the general bar.
Morris’s reason for quitting was because “[her] sister is having a kidney transplant.” This
reason is neither “related to the employmen t” nor a reason “for which the employer is
responsible.” Thus, Morris’s quitting does not fall within the “good cause” exception. See
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a)(1).
Turning to the “provide necessary care” exception, that ex ception would cover
Morris only if sisters were within the scope of “immediate family member.” See id. ,
subd. 1(7)(ii). Although Morris’s situation is unfortunate, the legislature was explicit in its
definition of an immediate family member, and sisters are not in that group. See Minn.
Stat. § 268.035, subd. 19a. We therefore conclude that Mo rris does not fall within the
“provide necessary care” exception, and th e ULJ correctly determined that Morris is
ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.