Joshua Winne, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0150

Joshua Winne,
Relator,

vs.

J & G Holdings, LLC,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed November 14, 2022
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 47749155-4

Joshua Winne, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

J & G Holdings, LLC, Henrietta, New York (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larkin , Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment -law judge (ULJ) that he was
ineligible for unemployment benefits when he quit his job without a good reason caused
by his employer after being assigned to a new location. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Joshua Winne worked as a part -time employee at respondent J & G
Holdings, LLC , from 2017 to December 2020. The company provided cleaning service s
for a Ford dealership in New Brighton. Relator worked as a cleaner there for about 20
hours per week, with a final rate of pay of $14.50 per hour. Because relator did not have
his own transportation, he relied on a friend who worked in the same area to drive him to
work.
On December 1, 2020, J & G informed relator that the Ford dealership decided not
to renew its contract with J & G . J & G offered relator a new assignment to clean a Honda
dealership in Coon Rapids. Relator would work 18 to 24 hours there every week. The pay
rate remained the same, and he would continue to work with the same co-workers. Relator
accepted the new assignment after visiting the Honda dealership with his manager.
However, relator did not show up for the scheduled training on January 2, 2021, and di d
not respond to J & G’s phone calls. Relator’s last day cleaning at the Ford dealership was
December 31, 2020. He never worked at the Honda dealership.
Relator applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED), which determined that he was eligible
because he was on assignment until January 3, 2021, when J & G asked him “to work at a
location that was not suitable and would cause an average worker to quit.” J & G appealed
that determination and requested a hearing before a ULJ.
The ULJ determined that relator quit his employment without a good reason caused
by the employer. The ULJ took judicial notice that the Ford dealership was 12.6 miles
from relator’s residence, whereas the Honda dealership was 11.4 miles from relator’s
residence. While the Honda dealership was 1.2 miles closer to relator’s home than the Ford
dealership, it was in a different direction, and relator could no longer get his friend to drive
him there. Relator also decided against using rideshare services such a s Uber and Lyft
because the cost would be too high. This determination resulted in an overpayment of
unemployment benefits in the amount of $4,998. Relator requested reconsideration, and
the ULJ affirmed. This certiorari appeal follow s.
DECISION
Relator claims that he is entitled to unemployment benefits because he quit for a
good reason caused by his employer J & G. We disagree.

“An applicant who quit employment is ineligible for all unemployment benefits”
unless an enumerated exception applies, one being a good reason caused by the employer.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2020). A “good reason caused by the employer for quitting”
is a reason that (1) is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is
responsible; (2) is adverse to the worker ; and (3) would compel an average, reasonable
worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remain employed . Id., subd. 3(a).
Furthermore, “[i]f the applicant is subject to adverse working conditions by the employer,
the applicant must complain to the employer and give the employer a reasonable
opportunity to correct the adverse working conditions before that may be a good r eason
caused by the employer for quitting.” Id. , subd. 3(c).
“We review de novo a ULJ’s determination that an applicant is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. And we review findings of fact in the light most favorable to the
ULJ’s decision and will re ly on findings that are substantially supported by the record.”
Fay v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 860 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation
omitted). “Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of
fact subject to our deference.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d
25, 31 (Minn. App. 2012).
As an initial matter, relator does not dispute that he quit employment with J & G on
January 2, 2021. The only issue on appeal is whether he quit for a good reason caused by
his employer.
Relator first argues that working at the Honda dealership would decrease his hours
by 30 percent due to not having work on Sunda ys. This is an issue of fact which we defer
to the ULJ’s findings and credibility determinations. Ywswf v. Telepan Wireless Servs,
Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Minn. App. 2007). At the hearing, relator testified that he
worked 20 hours a week at the Ford dealership and that he would have worked three to
four days a week for six hours a day at the Honda dealership. Based on relator’s own
testimony, he would have worked 18 to 24 hours a week at the Honda dealership even
though it would be closed on Sundays. Relator’s testimony is consistent with J & G’s
testimony that relator’s pay at the new job would remain the same. The record therefore
supports the ULJ’s finding that relator’s hours and pay would remain the same at the Honda
dealership.
Relator next argues that the cost of transportation to the Honda dealership would be
too high. Whether an increase in transportation expense s constitutes good cause to quit is
an issue of law that we review de novo. Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543,
545 (Minn. App. 2015).
Relator’s argument fail s to satisfy the first prong of the good-cause-to-quit
exception because , transportation to work is neither his employer’s responsibility nor
directly related to his performance as a cleaner. R elator does not claim , and the record
does not show, that he had any agreement with J & G conditioning his employment upon
his ability t o secure transportation. “In the absence of contract or custom imposing an
obligation of transportation upon the employer, transportation is usually considered the
problem of the employee.” Hill v. Cont. Beverages, Inc., 240 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Minn.
1976); see also Werner v. Med. Prof’ls LLC, 782 N.W2d 840, 842 (Minn. App. 2010), rev.
denied (Minn. Aug. 10, 2010) (holding that transportation was ultimately employee’s
responsibility when it had no direct relation to her performance at work). Like relator, the
employee in Hill had no car and no public transportation to get to work. 240 N.W.2d at
315. He shared a ride with a co-worker until that co- worker was transferred to a different
shift. Id. He then could not obtain transportation from anyone else and eventually quit.
Id. Before he took the job, the employer had orally assured him that he could “find a ride
certainly with someone.” Id. at 315- 16. The supreme court held that no fault can be
attributed to the employer due to the unavailability of transportation on a different shift,
and as a result, the employee quit without good cause. Id.
Relator cannot meet the second prong because a decrease in distance between work
and his residence is not objectively adv erse to him. In Werner, we held that an increase of
17 miles in an employee’s round -trip commute was not objectively adverse to the
employee. 782 N.W.2d at 843. Here, relator’s new job at the Honda dealership was 1.2
miles closer to his home than the Ford dealership. That relator cannot obtain transportation
is a circumstance personal to him and does not factor into the determination of the adversity
requirement. See Werner, 782 N.W2d at 843.
On the third prong, we conclude that the change in workplac e would not have
compelled “an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than
remaining in the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a)(3). To compel is to
“cause or bring about by force, threats, or overwhelming pressure.” Werner , 782 N.W.2d
at 842 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (9th ed. 2009)). The standard here is an
objective, reasonable-person standard of the claimant. Id . For the same reasons that the
adversity requirement fails, relocation of work to a place that is closer to the employee’s
home would not compel an average, reasonable person to quit employment. See id.
Relator’s personal reason to quit does not constitute a “good reason caused by the employer
for quitting” under our caselaw. Id.
Finally, even if relator had a good reason to quit, he would still be ineligible for
unemployment benefits because he did not notify J & G and give them a reasonable
opportunity to c ure the adverse working conditions by, for instance, assigning him to
another more convenient location. At the hearing, J & G testified that relator gave no notice
of quitting. Relator initially agreed to accept the new job but failed to show up and did not
contact J & G after that . Despite relator’s contrary testimony, the ULJ found J & G’s
testimony more credible because it was “more specific, detailed, and logical.” Credibility
determinations “are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Bangtson v. Allina Med. Grp., 766 N.W2d 328, 332 (Minn. App. 2009).
Because the record supports the ULJ’s findings and its determination that relator di d
not quit his employment at J & G due to a good reason caused by J & G, we affirm.
Affirmed.