From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assoc

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Sep 30, 2003
669 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

holding that employee quit with good reason because she was demoted to position with approximately 16% less pay and disadvantageous hours

Summary of this case from BROMS v. U.S. DEP. OF AGRICULTURE/AGRICULTURAL

Opinion

No. A03-233.

Filed: September 30, 2003.

Department of Employment and Economic Development, File No. 11906 02.

Reversed.

Amy B. Mohberg, Central Minnesota Legal Services, (for relator)

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., (respondent)

Lee B. Nelson, Philip B. Byrne, Department of Employment and Economic Development, (for respondent Commissioner)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Schumacher, Judge.


OPINION


In this certiorari appeal, relator Jennifer L. Rootes challenges a determination by the commissioner's representative that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The commissioner's representative found she voluntarily quit her employment with respondent Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. without good reason caused by Wal-Mart. We reverse.

FACTS

Rootes was a grocery department manager for Wal-Mart. She was employed from November 2000 until May 6, 2002. In February 2002, Wal-Mart warned Rootes that she was not adequately performing her duties. Later that spring, Wal-Mart gave Rootes a "D-day," a paid day off where an employee decides if he or she wants to stay in his or her current position. Rootes chose to retain her position and submitted a plan detailing how she would improve her performance. The plan was accepted, and she was allowed to continue as department manager.

A few months later, Rootes's supervisor informed her she was not adequately performing her job and would need to decide by the end of her shift whether she would resign or accept a lesser position. Rootes left work without speaking to anyone. The next day, Rootes called in sick. At some point following her weekend off, Rootes decided to quit rather than accept the demotion.

Prior to her decision to quit, Rootes worked Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. She was paid $11.13 per hour. Rootes was confident that if she accepted a demotion her pay would be decreased, the hours she worked would change considerably, and she would have to work weekends. Rootes never asked for details regarding the effects of demotion. Wal-Mart concedes it likely would have demoted Rootes to a stocking or cashier position, reducing her wages by $1.75 per hour and requiring her to work a different shift, including weekends.

Rootes sought unemployment benefits. An unemployment law judge determined Rootes quit but was eligible for benefits because she quit for good reason caused by Wal-Mart. On appeal, the commissioner's representative concluded Rootes did not quit for a good reason caused by Wal-Mart because an average reasonable person would not quit and become unemployed without first confirming the conditions of her new position. Based on this conclusion, the commissioner's representative determined Rootes was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2002).

ISSUE

Did Rootes quit for good reason caused by her employer?

ANALYSIS

Because it is undisputed Rootes voluntarily quit her job, the dispositive issue is whether Rootes quit for good reason caused by Wal-Mart. This is a question of law we review de novo. Biegner v. Bloomington Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc., 426 N.W.2d 483, 485 (Minn.App. 1988).

When an employee voluntarily quits, the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits if the decision to quit is the result of a good reason caused by the employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.095 subd. 1(1) (2002). A good reason to quit is one "directly related to the employment . . . for which the employer is responsible" and must be significant enough to "compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(a)(1), (2) (2002).

What constitutes good reason caused by the employer is defined exclusively by statute. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(f) (2002). The legislature has determined an average, reasonable worker has good reason to quit when faced with substantial adverse changes in wages, hours or other terms of employment. See id., subd. 3(c) (2002) (stating "substantial adverse change in the wages, hours, or other terms of employment by the employer shall be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting unless the change occurred because of the applicant's employment misconduct") (emphasis added). The rules of statutory construction state "shall" is mandatory. Minn. Stat. § 645.44 subd. 16 (2002).

Thus, the legislature has unambiguously provided that, absent employee misconduct, an employee may quit for good reason caused by the employer if there was a substantial adverse change in wages, hours or other terms of employment. "When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it . . . must be given effect." Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn. 2001). Here, Wal-Mart and respondent Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development made no claim that Rootes committed employee misconduct. The sole question is whether Rootes's demotion would have resulted in substantial changes under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(c).

Substantial is defined as "considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent." The American Heritage Dictionary 1354 (3d ed. 2000). The supreme court, addressing whether an employer's wage reduction was sufficient to create a lockout and therefore allow employees to collect unemployment benefits, approved of other jurisdictions that found a wage reduction of 20-25% was good cause to quit, but a reduction of less than 15% was not. Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf, 310 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn. 1981). Although Sunstar focused on the earlier statutory language "good cause," that language is similar to "good reason," and therefore we consider it in interpreting good reason. See Erb v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 601 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Minn.App. 1999).

This court has found a 19% reduction in wage is a good reason to quit. Danielson Mobil, Inc. v. Johnson, 394 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn.App. 1986). A 10% reduction in wages, however, is not good reason to quit. Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc., 528 N.W.2d 268, 270 (Minn.App. 1995).

Here, Rootes knew that the demotion would result in reduced wages, changed hours, and weekend shifts. Rootes's supervisor acknowledged the difference in pay "was very important" to Rootes. Furthermore, while Rootes may not have known the exact amount of the wage reduction, she testified she quit because the wage reduction was amplified by a considerable change in hours. The wage reduction when combined with the change in hours is substantial. We conclude Rootes quit for good reason caused by Wal-Mart pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 3(c), and is not disqualified from receiving benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1).

Because we hold that Rootes quit for good reason caused by Wal-Mart, we do not address Rootes's alternative argument that this case should be remanded because the unemployment law judge failed to properly develop the facts.

DECISION

Rootes had good reason to quit caused by Wal-Mart. She is not disqualified from receiving benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1) (2002). We reverse the decision of the commissioner's representative.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assoc

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Sep 30, 2003
669 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

holding that employee quit with good reason because she was demoted to position with approximately 16% less pay and disadvantageous hours

Summary of this case from BROMS v. U.S. DEP. OF AGRICULTURE/AGRICULTURAL

holding that a demotion with a pay reduction, considerable change in hours, and weekend shifts was a good reason caused by the employer to quit, entitling an employee to unemployment benefits

Summary of this case from Sutton v. East Metro Clean

holding that employee quit with good reason because employer substantially reduced wages and hours

Summary of this case from HOUN v. CAPITAL GRANITE MARBLE

holding that employee quit with good reason because employer substantially reduced wages and hours

Summary of this case from James v. Masterson Personnel

holding that a pay reduction of 15%, demotion, and change in working hours was good reason to quit

Summary of this case from Lynch v. Northland Group

holding that wage reduction of $1.75 per hour, in addition to a new weekend work shift, was a good reason to quit

Summary of this case from Ntamere v. DecisionONE Corp.

finding a wage cut of nearly 16% unreasonable

Summary of this case from Stech v. Cnty. of Carver

concluding that a wage reduction, along with "changed hours, and weekend shifts," provided good cause for an employee to quit

Summary of this case from Bachmann v. Triangle 66 Oil Co.

concluding that employee who was offered a position with a wage reduction and a different shift that included weekend work had good reason caused by the employer to quit

Summary of this case from Daniels v. Supervalu Inc.

concluding that Rootes had good reason to quit where the offered position involved a $1.75 hourly wage reduction and a different weekly shift that included weekends

Summary of this case from Lynch v. Wal-Mart Associates Inc.

concluding considerable change in hours when coupled with wage reduction was substantial adverse change under Minn. Stat. § 268.095

Summary of this case from Kirnyczuk v. Drill-A-Matic, Inc.

determining that a decrease in hours and wages constituted a good reason to quit

Summary of this case from Bjerke v. U.S. Postal Serv.

impending substantial changes in wages and hours constituted good reason to quit

Summary of this case from Kimble v. Empire Beauty Sch.

In Rootes, 669 N.W.2d at 419, this court concluded that substantial adverse changes to employment were present where an employee received a demotion that resulted in reduced wages, changed hours, and weekend shifts.

Summary of this case from Smithers v. Indt. Sch. Dist. No. 477

In Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 669 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Minn.App. 2003), this court concluded that the employee had good reason caused by the employer to quit, after she was demoted; although she did not inquire about the exact terms of employment before quitting, the employee knew that "the demotion would result in reduced wages, changed hours, and weekend shifts."

Summary of this case from Roelandt v. Dept. of Human Services

In Rootes, supra, the claimant's supervisor required her to decide by the end of her shift whether she would resign or accept a lesser position. 669 N.W.2d at 418.

Summary of this case from Jeffrey v. Walch Walch, Inc.

stating that a "substantial adverse change in the wages, hours, or other terms of employment by the employer shall be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting unless the change occurred because of the applicant's employment misconduct"

Summary of this case from Soder v. Stanley Steemer Carpet Cleaning

explaining that the statutory language providing that "substantial adverse change in the wages, hours, or other terms of employment by the employer shall be considered a good reason caused by the employer for quitting unless the change occurred because of the applicant's employment misconduct" is unambiguous

Summary of this case from Morris v. Firefly Creek Casino
Case details for

Rootes v. Wal-Mart Assoc

Case Details

Full title:Jennifer L. Rootes, Relator, v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Respondent…

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 30, 2003

Citations

669 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Jeffrey v. Walch Walch, Inc.

3(c). For example, this court has held that a substantial wage reduction, a loss of hours, and change in…

Stech v. Cnty. of Carver

The reason an employee quit employment is a question of fact. Embaby v. Dep't of Jobs & Training, 397 N.W.2d…