Charles R. Stenger, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-2030

Charles R. Stenger,
Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Wire & Cable Company,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 5, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 36745960-3

Charles R. Stenger, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Minnesota Wire & Cable Company, St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Sasha E. Mackin, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
In this unemployment-benefits appeal, relator-employee challenges a decision by an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for benefits because he quit his
employment and he did not satisfy an exception to ineligibility for quitting. Relator asserts
that he did not quit his employment but that his employer forced him to resign by presenting
him with a performance-improvement plan (PIP). Relator also argues the ULJ’s findings
omitted relevant facts. Because the relator refused to comply with the PIP and, instead,
resigned, the ULJ properly concluded that the relator was not forced to resign by actions
of his employer. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the ULJ.
FACTS
Relator Charles R. Stenger began employment for respondent Minnesota Wire and
Cable Company (Minnesota Wire) on November 3, 2003, after previously working for the
company between 1989 and 1998. Minnesota Wire is a manufacturer of cable harnesses
for medical and d efense purposes. Relator worked full -time as a strategic -sourcing
manager, which involved purchasing raw materials, capital equipment, and insulant.
On June 13, 2018, relator attended a meeting with three higher ranking Minnesota
Wire employees during which he received a PIP. Prior to this meeting, relator “had not
received any formal discipline or warnings from the company .” The PIP began with the
following introductory statements.
[Relator], this performance improvement plan is
focused on your specif ic job responsibilities and the require
[sic] attention to and performance improvement on them. We

3
will state the responsibility, describe our expectation of your
needed performance, track your progress and measure the
specific improvements required to me et minimum
expectations.
[Relator], this is a very serious situation and requires
your complete cooperation and attention. We expect your
improvement. Not meeting these minimum requirements
could result in disciplinary action up to and including
termination.
The PIP called for relator to participate in weekly team meetings, complete daily and
weekly reports with sourcing information for the team’s review, and provide up -to-date
information at meetings.
Relator asked if he was being disciplined to which he was told no. Relator objected
to the PIP and asked to do a “step plan” instead. Minnesota Wire stated that it was not
interested in that alteration to the plan. Relator indicated that he would resign before
signing the PIP. Minnesota Wire immedia tely accepted the resignation and prepared a
letter for his signature. Relator signed the resignation letter approximately ten minutes
after the meeting ended, indicating his last day would be July 26, 2018.
On June 22, 2018, relator informed Minnesota Wire that he did not want to resign
but that the PIP would need to be restructured. In particular, relator requested to remove
the portion of the PIP that stated it was “a very serious situation and requires your complete
cooperation” because it “sound[ed] like there’s a preexisting problem.” Minnesota Wire
refused to make modifications to the PIP but agreed to extend relator’s employment until
August 31, 2018.

4
The department of employment and economic development (DEED) denied
relator’s application for unemployment benefits. R elator appealed. Following a hearing
on October 2, 2018, a ULJ found that relator quit his job without good cause. On November
6, 2018, the ULJ issued a modified decision following relator’s request for reconsideration,
correcting factual determinations but affirm ing that relator was not eligible for benefits.
Relator appeals by writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2018), this court reviews a ULJ’s
decision and may affirm, remand, reverse, or modify the decision. For this court to reverse
or modify a ULJ decision, it must determine:
[I]f the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been
prejudiced because of the findings, inferences, conclusions, or
decision are:
(1) in violation of the constitutional provisions;
(2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
the department;
(3) made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) affected by other error of law;
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the
entire record as submitted; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious.
Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d). This court will affirm if “[t]he ULJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence and provide the statutorily required reason for her
credibility determination.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 533
(Minn. App. 2007) (setting out factors to consider in making credibility determinations).
“This court views the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision.
This court also gives deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ. As a

5
result, this court will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially
sustains them.” Peterson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App . 2008)
(citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).
The Minnesota Legislature created the unemployment -insurance program to
provide for persons “who are unemployed through no fault of their own a temporary partial
wage replacement to assist the unemployed worker to become reemployed.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.03, subd. 1 (2018). If a person quits employment, they become ineligible for
unemployment benefits unless a statutory exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095,
subd. 1 (2018). A person qui ts employment “when the decision to end the employment
was, at the time the employment ended, the employee’s.” Id., subd. 2(a) (2018). If an
employee provides a “notice of quitting in the future” that notice:
[D]oes not constitute a quit at the time the notice is given. An
employee who seeks to withdraw a previously submitted notice
of quitting in the future has quit the employment, as of the
intended date of quitting, if the employer does not agree th at
the notice may be withdrawn.
Id., subd. 2(d) (2018). In contrast, an employee is discharged by the employer “when any
words or actions by an employer would lead a reasonable employee to believe that the
employer will no longer allow the employee to work for the employer in any capacity.”
Id., subd. 5(a) (2018).

6
I. The ULJ’s omission of factual findings requested by relator does not provide a
basis for reversal.

Relator contends that the ULJ omitted factual findings from its decision that would
be beneficial to him. In making this argument, relator does not cite to any law in support
of his claim for reversal. We construe this challenge as a procedural error argument.
A ULJ “must assist all parties in the presentation of evidence.” Minn. R. 3310.2921
(2017). Also a ULJ “must ensure that all relevant facts are clearly and fully developed.”
Id. For a full development of facts, the ULJ may “obtain testimony and other evidence
from department employees and any other person the judge believes will assist the judge
in reaching a proper result.” Id. A ULJ’s decision must consist of written factual findings
and reasoning, and must address any credibility determinati ons made that affect the
decision. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a) (2018); see also Gerson v. Comm’r of Econ.
Sec., 340 N.W.2d 353, 355 (Minn. App. 1983) (“Effective judicial review requires an
adequate formulation of a record and findings.”).
The ULJ addressed the findings that relator identifies as omitted or missing from its
decision in its reconsideration decision. The ULJ explained that it either found the
information unsupported by the record, irrelevant to the issues, or contained in the decision
itself. We conclude that the ULJ’s decision to not include certain findings requested by
relator does not provide a basis for reversal.
II. The ULJ did not err by determining relator quit his employment without good
cause.
“Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.”
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation

7
omitted). A “determination that an employee quit without good reason attributable to the
employer is a legal conclusion, but the conclusion must be based on findings that have the
requisite evidentiary support.” Id. We defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Wiley
v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., 834 N.W.2d 567, 569 (Minn. App. 2013).
“An employee cannot quit under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a), unless the
employee makes the decision to end the employment. An employee cannot
‘unintentionally’ quit employment.” Posey v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 879 N.W.2d
662, 667 (Min n. App. 2016); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(b) (2018) (“When
determining if an applicant quit, the theory of a constructive quit does not apply.”).
Whether a person quits or is discharged from employment is a question of fact, and will
not be d isturbed so long as it is substantially supported by the evidence. Nichols, 720
N.W.2d at 594.
The ULJ found that when Minnesota Wire provided the PIP to relator he refused to
sign it and indicated his desire to resign instead. Minnesota Wire accepted re lator’s
resignation and drafted a resignation letter that day, which relator signed. Relator’s
decision to adopt the language of the resignation letter by his signature constitutes a
conscious decision to end his employment with Minnesota Wire in exchange for not having
to agree to the terms of the PIP. Posey, 879 N.W.2d at 667. The ULJ determined relator
quit his employment on August 31, 2018, his last day of employment with Minnesota Wire,
because relator refused to agree to the PIP. The record supports this finding.
Relator contends —by incorporating a claim that Minnesota Wire engaged in
behavior that would justify his decision to quit—his resignation was forced. An employee

8
may have a good reason to quit caused by the employer which entitles the emp loyee to
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3 (2018). Pursuant to section
268.095, subdivision 3(a):
A good reason caused by the employer for quitting is a reason:
(1) that is directly related to the employment and for
which the employer is responsible;
(2) that is adverse to the worker; and
(3) that would compel an average, reasonable
worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining
in the employment.
“The issue of whether an employee had good reason to quit is a question of law reviewed
de novo.” Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000).
“A good reason to quit is one that is real, not imaginary, substantial, not trifling, and
reasonable, not whimsical. The standard is reasonableness as applied to the average man
or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Hein v. Precision Assocs., Inc. , 609 N.W.2d
916, 918 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotations and citation omitted).
An analogous circumstance arose in Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200,
206-07 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004) , where this court held
that an employee’s refusal to participate in a reasonable PIP constituted employment
misconduct that disqualified that employee from unemployment benefit s. In Vargas, an
employer presented a PIP to its employee that stated he would cooperate with the plan but
the employee did not fulfill the requirements. 673 N.W.2d at 204. The employee admitted
he did not intend to comply with the plan which resulted in his termination. Id. This court
recognized the “intentional refusal to attempt any part of the improvement plan
demonstrate[d] that he consciously disregarded his duties and obligations” which an

9
employer reasonably can expect to be followed. Id. at 2 06. Vargas argued the plan
imposed unreasonable burdens on him, which this court rejected. Id. at 207.
Unlike in Vargas, relator refused to engage in the PIP and, instead, offered his
resignation. Relator reasons his decision to refuse the PIP was suppo rted by its use of
“incriminating statements ,” and the plan violat ed the company protocol. The ULJ
explained why relator’s claim is unavailing.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that [relator]
did not quit his job because of a good reason caused by the
employer. [Relator] quit his job because he was given a
performance improvement plan to sign on June 13, 2018.
[Relator] objected to the plan for two reasons. One he felt that
it suggested that his performance had been poor. This was not
a good rea son to quit. It is normal for an employers to have
concerns about an employee’s job performance, and the
language in the performance improvement plan was mild and
measured.

Second, [relator] thought the expectations in the plan
were unreasonable, and it would be difficult to create the daily
and weekly reports that they were demanding. Unreasonable
demands from the employer could potentially be a good reason
to quit. However, the exact expectations around these reports,
and the timeline on when [relator] had to be doing them were
not clear. [Relator] gave his notice [to] quit before he even
tried to comply with his employer’s demand and figure out the
details of what was required. Because [relator] quit before
trying to comply with his employer’s deman ds, it was not a
good reason to quit caused by the employer.

Accordingly, [relator] did not quit for a good reason
caused by the employer.
Although the PIP required that relator meet certain minimum expectations and it
was a “very serious situation” that required relator’s “complete cooperation and attention”
it is unlikely that these statements would prompt an average, reasonable employee to leave

10
their employment. The PIP identified expectations to be improved and the metrics to
determine if he improved . Even with the particular language in the plan identifying the
need for relator to comply, the average, reasonable worker would presumably attempt to
comply with a PIP to continue to retain their employment.
Moreover, the ULJ addressed the concern ident ified in Vargas that a PIP may be
unreasonable which could support a good reason to quit. 673 N.W.2d at 206-07. Although
relator identified concerns with the expectations of the PIP, the ULJ noted those
expectations and timeframes to begin completing these tasks “were not clear.” An average,
reasonable, employee would attempt to meet the employer’s PIP with the expectations
identified to determine the reasonableness of the plan. If the PIP was unreasonable, then
the employee may have a claim that their employer forced their decision to quit. Relator,
however, did not present sufficient evidence to allow the ULJ to find the plan unreasonable.
We conclude the ULJ did not err by finding relator lacked good cause to quit his
employment with Minnesota Wire and that, therefore, he is not eligible for unemployment
benefits.
Affirmed.