Teresa Ward, Relator,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0932

Teresa Ward,
Relator,

vs.

Delta Airlines,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed April 4, 2022
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 44468808-3

Teresa Ward, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Delta Airlines, St. Louis, Missouri (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.
SYLLABUS
An employee who accepts a voluntary separation package believing that they may
be subject to a layoff does not have a legally recognized good reason caused by the
employer for quitting.
2
OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was
ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment when she accepted
a voluntary separation package during the COVID-19 pandemic, which did not constitute
a good reason for quitting caused by her employer. We agree with the ULJ and affirm.
FACTS
Relator Teresa Ward worked in customer service for respondent Delta Airlines for
13 years. On March 31, 2020, Ward worked her last day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
she was placed on a paid leave of absence. In June 2020, Delta sent employees “a voluntary
leave from the company package.” Ward accepted a package, and her employment ended
on July 31, 2020.
In December 2020, Ward established a benefit account with respondent Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Ward submitted that
she had quit her employment after “Delta offered their employees . . . an early out or
retirement package to prevent being laid off with receiving no money.” DEED issued a
determination of ineligibility, concluding that Ward voluntarily quit employment because
she accepted the separation package when continuing suitable work was available. Ward
appealed.
At a hearing before a ULJ, Ward testified that she accepted a package that provided
her $27,000 before taxes, health insurance for two years, life insurance, and lifetime flying
benefits for her and her family. Ward testified that she accepted the package because “at
3
least you leave with something. You at least have two years of insurance versus being laid
off and not having anything and not knowing when I get a job.”
Ward testified that if employees did not accept packages, there would be forced
layoffs and employees would not receive severance benefits. The ULJ asked: “Did you
know if you would be one of the people who would have been forced to be laid off without
a benefit package if not enough people took it?” Ward replied: “I did not know that.” She
testified that Delta sent an email that included a list of all employees’ hire dates but did not
disclose how many people would be laid off if others did not accept the separation package.
Ward could not recall her position on the hire-date list. Ward testified that employees were
later informed that 20,000 employees accepted a package, and nobody was laid off.
The ULJ determined that Ward quit employment when she accepted the voluntary
separation package. The ULJ noted that an applicant who quit employment is ineligible
for unemployment benefits unless an exception applies . An exception exists for an
applicant who quit for a good reason caused by the employer. The ULJ decided that Ward
did not quit for a good reason caused by her employer because Ward chose to separate
from employment with benefits rather than face a possible future lay off with no benefits.
Ward filed a request for reconsideration. She claimed that she quit only after
mounting pressure from Delta and then made the “best possible decision” because of the
pandemic. The ULJ affirmed the decision. This certiorari appeal follows.
4
ISSUE
Did relator’s voluntary acceptance of a severance package to avoid a potential layoff
constitute a good reason caused by her employer to quit employment?

ANALYSIS
Ward argues that the ULJ erred in concluding that she quit her employment without
a good reason caused by Delta and was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.
This court may remand the ULJ’s decision for further proceedings, or reverse or
modify it if the substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced because the findings,
inferences, conclusion, or decision are “(1) in violation of 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 hearing record as submitted; or (6) arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2020). This court views “the ULJ’s factual findings in the light
most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by
the ULJ. In doing so, we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence
substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App.
2006) (citations omitted).
Quit employment
The ULJ determined that Ward quit her employment. Whether an employee quit is
a question of fact for the ULJ. Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d
25, 31 (Minn. App. 2012). This court will not disturb a ULJ’s findings if the evidence
substantially sustains them. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344.
5
“A quit from employment occurs when the decision to end the employment was, at
the time the employment ended, the employee’s.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(a) (2020).
“An employee who has been notified that the employee will be discharged in the future,
who chooses to end the employment while employment in any capacity is still available,
has quit the employment.” Id., subd. 2(c) (2020).
In her application for unemployment benefits, Ward stated that she quit after “Delta
offered their employees . . . an early out or retirement package to prevent being laid off
with receiving no money.” Ward claimed that she took the package “in order to receive
some money [rather than] be laid off or furlough[ed] without any payments.” Thus, Ward
was still employed when she decided to separate from her employment. Therefore, the
evidence substantially supports the ULJ’s finding that Ward quit her employment when
she voluntarily accepted the severance package.
Ineligible for unemployment benefits
Generally, an individual is ineligible for unemployment benefits if they quit their
employment. Id., subd. 1 (2020). But statutory exceptions to ineligibility exist. See id.
One exception to ineligibility applies when “the applicant quit the employment because of
a good reason caused by the employer.” Id., subd. 1(1). “Whether an employee had good
cause to quit is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Rowan v. Dream It, Inc.,
812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted).
A good reason caused by the employer 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
6
rather than remaining in the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a) (2020). But
“[n]otification of discharge in the future, including a layoff because of lack of work, is not
a good reason caused by the employer for quitting.” Id., subd. 3(e) (2020). And an
employee who chooses to quit to take an early retirement package does not have a good
reason caused by the employer for quitting. Kehoe v. Minn. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 568
N.W.2d 889, 891 (Minn. App. 1997). “ An applicant is not eligible to receive
unemployment benefits for any week the applicant is receiving, has received, or will
receive separation pay . . . or any other payments paid by an employer because of, upon, or
after separation from employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b(a) (2020).
Here, the ULJ decided that Ward did not have a good reason caused by Delta for
quitting because she felt that it was better to separate from employment with benefits rather
than face a possible future lay off with no benefits. Ward’s testimony supports this
conclusion.
Ward testified that she accepted a separation package. She received $27,000, health
insurance for two years, life insurance, and lifetime flying benefits for her and her family.
Ward testified that she took the package because “at least you leave with something. You
at least have two years of insurance versus being laid off and not having anything and not
knowing when I get a job.” This situation is similar to one in which an employee quits
after notification of a future discharge. Ward described a reason for quitting that was not
a good reason caused by Delta. Without an exception applying in this matter, Ward quit
her employment without a good reason caused by her employer, and she was ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
7
Relator’s arguments
On appeal, Ward claims that a different statutory provision applies to her case.
Under Minn. Stat. § 268.088 (2020):
(a) An applicant who elects to become temporarily
unemployed in order to avoid the layoff of another employee
with the applicant’s employer due to lack of work is not
ineligible for benefits under the leave of absence provisions of
section 268.085, subdivision 13a, nor ineligible under the quit
provisions of section 268.095, if:
(1) the election is authorized under a collective
bargaining agreement or written employer policy;
(2) the employer has accepted the applicant’s election;
(3) the employer provides a written certification that is
provided to the department that the applicant’s election
prevented another employee with the employer from
being laid off due to lack of work; and
(4) both the applicant and the employer, at the time of
the election, expect the applicant’s unemployment from
the employer to be temporary.

Ward claims that she accepted a separation package based on her age and years of
service to “save the [ c]ompany and save jobs for co-workers.” However, there is no
support in the record that this statute is applicable. For example, Delta did not provide a
written certification to DEED that Ward’s voluntary separation from employment
prevented another employee from being laid off. Additionally, this argument is raised for
the first time on appeal and was not considered by the ULJ. Because the ULJ was not
asked to address this argument in the decision, it is not appropriately before this court. See
Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that reviewing court will
generally consider only issues that were presented and considered below and that parties
may not obtain review by raising a different theory on appeal); Peterson v. Ne. Bank -
8
Minneapolis, 805 N.W.2d 878, 883 (Minn. App. 2011) (declining to review issue not
considered by ULJ).1
DECISION
The evidence supports the ULJ’s finding that Ward quit her employment. The ULJ
did not err in concluding that Ward quit her employment without a good reason caused by
her employer and properly concluded that Ward was ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.

1 For the same reason, Ward’s second claim on appeal—that she quit employment due to
bias and racism—is not appropriately before this court. Ward additionally challenges
another decision issued by DEED. As a separate issue not addressed by the ULJ in this
matter, a challenge to that other decision is also not appropriately before this court.