Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that an employee's failure to return from leave based on a reasonable belief he had been fired is not a voluntary termination, affirming unemployment benefits.
Outcome: Affirmed for appellee.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2016, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
What happened
The facts of the case, in plain language.
Johnson began working for Midland Electric as an electrician in September 1983 without a Minnesota electrician's license, although he intended to take the licensing test.
During December 1983 and January 1984, Midland became increasingly dissatisfied with Johnson's work and told him on several occasions that he would be discharged if he did not speed up.
On January 13, 1984, Midland asked Johnson to return his tools before his leave, responded that it could not guarantee any hours when he returned, and left without answering when he asked whether he should call.
Midland learned on January 9, 1984, four days before Johnson's last day of work, that he had failed the Minnesota journeyman license test.
Johnson remained in Oregon and filed for unemployment benefits in Minnesota rather than returning to work.
What the court decided
Alan Johnson worked as an unlicensed electrician for Midland Electric beginning in September 1983. After repeated complaints about his work pace and his failure of the journeyman license test, Midland asked him to turn in his tools before a two-week leave, said it could not guarantee hours on his return, and walked away without answering when he asked whether he should call. Johnson stayed in Oregon, believing he had been fired. After conflicting administrative rulings, the Commissioner of Economic Security found Midland failed to prove Johnson quit voluntarily and awarded him unemployment benefits. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that an employer bears the initial burden of proving a voluntary quit, that discharge-versus-quit is a question of fact reviewed for record support, and that leaving work due to a reasonable belief of discharge is not a voluntary termination.
- In unemployment compensation cases, an employer bears the initial burden of proving that an employee voluntarily terminated his employment; the burden then shifts to the employee to demonstrate that he discontinued his employment for good cause attributable to the employer.
- An employee's failure to return to work due to a reasonable belief that he has been discharged does not constitute a voluntary termination of employment. (*812)
- Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact, and factual findings will not be disturbed on review if there is evidence in the record which reasonably sustains them. (*812)
- An employee may reasonably believe he has been discharged even absent the employer's actual intent to terminate where the employer demands return of company tools, refuses to guarantee future hours, and leaves without answering when the employee asks whether he should call before returning. (*812)
How the court reached its decision
The court's reasoning, step by step.
Does the record support the Commissioner's determination that Johnson did not voluntarily terminate his employment? Midland asked Johnson to turn in his tools before his leave, said it could not guarantee any hours upon his return, and walked away without answering when Johnson asked whether he should call; Midland had also repeatedly told Johnson he would be discharged if he did not speed up and had learned four days before his last day that he failed the journeyman license test. The record supports the Commissioner's determination that Johnson reasonably believed he had been discharged before he left for Oregon; even if Midland did not actually intend to fire him, the belief was reasonable, and the Commissioner's order awarding benefits is affirmed.
Is an employee's failure to return to work based on a reasonable belief that he has been fired a voluntary termination? The Commissioner found that Midland did not meet its burden of proving a voluntary quit and determined instead that Johnson did not return to work due to a reasonable belief that he had been fired. Because failure to return to work due to a reasonable belief of discharge is not a voluntary termination, the Commissioner's award of benefits stands.
Key quotes from the opinion
Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.
Cases the court relied on
Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Huckabee v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N (Miss. 1999)
- Barbara Huckabee v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission (Miss. 1996)
- Souder v. Ziegler, Inc., Buhl Location (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Dahl v. Del Dee Foods, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Kasele Howard, Relator v. Family First Home Care, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Robert S. Paxton, Relator v. Ind. School District 047, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Amanulah Dharsee, Relator v. Rubber Industries, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Jami Sternquist, Relator v. PAL Management, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
- Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
- Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)
- Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)
- Krantz v. Loxtercamp Transport, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Hendricks & Lamers, Ltd. v. Vadnais (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Gonsior v. Alternative Staffing, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Full opinion
The complete text of the court's opinion as published.
Opinion
OPINION
Relator, Midland Electric Inc., appeals from a determination by the Commissioner of Economic Security that the respondent-employee did not voluntarily terminate his employment. We affirm.
FACTS
In September 1983, respondent Alan Johnson began working for the relator as an electrician. Johnson did not have a Minnesota electrician’s license, although he intended to take the test. During December 1983 and January 1984 relator became increasingly dissatisfied with Johnson’s work and told him on several occasions that he would be discharged if he did not speed up.
Johnson was scheduled to take a two-week leave of absence in January 1984 to go to Oregon. His last day of work before the leave was January 13. On January 9, relator learned that Johnson had failed the Minnesota journeyman license test.
On January 13 relator asked Johnson to return some tools before he left for Oregon. Johnson asked if he would have a job when he got back, and relator responded that he could not guarantee any hours when Johnson returned. When Johnson asked if he should call when he got back, relator left without answering.
Johnson remained in Oregon and filed for unemployment benefits in Minnesota. A referee awarded him benefits, finding that he had voluntarily terminated his employment for good cause due to a 25 percent decrease in work and a corresponding decrease in his wages.
A Commissioner’s representative reversed, finding that Johnson had voluntarily terminated his employment without good cause. The Commissioner’s representative specifically found that Johnson was not laid off due to a lack of work, but had failed to return to available work.
The Commissioner subsequently vacated his decision and remanded for additional evidence. Upon remand, a referee determined that Johnson had been involuntarily discharged for reasons other than misconduct. A Commissioner’s representative affirmed, explaining the confusion in this ease was due to the fact that neither the relator nor Johnson knew what they were attempting to prove. Although the relator claimed that Johnson had voluntarily quit, his testimony focused upon his cause to discharge Johnson. On the other hand, Johnson maintained that he had quit due to reduced hours and harrassment, but testified that he did not return from Oregon because he believed he had been fired.
The Commissioner found that the relator did not meet his burden of proving that Johnson had voluntarily terminated his employment without good cause. The Commissioner concluded, rather, that Johnson had failed to return from Oregon due to a reasonable belief that he had been discharged before he left. The Commissioner therefore awarded benefits to Johnson.
ISSUE
Does the record support the Commissioner’s determination that Johnson did not voluntarily terminate his employment?
ANALYSIS
In unemployment compensation cases an employer has the initial burden of proving that an employee voluntarily terminated his employment. Marz v. Dept. of Employment Services, 256 N.W.2d 287, 289 (Minn. 1977). The burden then shifts to the employee to demonstrate that he discontinued his employment for good cause attributable to the employer. Zepp v. Arthur Treacher’s Fish & Chips, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn. 1978).
*812 In the present case the Commissioner found that relator did not meet his burden of proving that Johnson voluntarily quit. Rather, the Commissioner determined that Johnson did not return to work due to a reasonable belief that he had been fired. In Wallace W. Carlson Co. v. Hasler, 351 N.W.2d 688 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), we indicated that an employee’s failure to return to work based upon a reasonable belief that he has been fired should not be characterized as misconduct. Likewise, the Commissioner found, and we agree, that an employee’s failure to return to work due to a reasonable belief that he has been discharged does not constitute a voluntary termination.
Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact, Hollar v. Richard Mfg. Co., 346 N.W.2d 692, 693, 694 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); Seacrist v. City of Cottage Grove, 344 N.W.2d 889 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984), and we will not disturb factual findings if there is evidence in the record which reasonably sustains those findings. White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983). We believe that in the present ease the record supports the Commissioner’s determination that Johnson reasonably believed he had been discharged before he left for Oregon. Relator asked Johnson to turn in his tools, told him he could not guarantee work when Johnson returned, and walked away when Johnson asked if he should call when he got back. In addition, relator had complained of Johnson’s work in the past and had discovered only four days earlier that Johnson had failed the journeyman license test. Even if relator did not actually intend to fire Johnson, he could reasonably believe that he had been discharged. See Carlson, 351 N.W.2d at 690.
DECISION
The order of the Commissioner of Economic Security is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Continue your research
- Minnesota decisions applying the reasonable-belief-of-discharge rationale to employees who fail to return from leave
- Cases allocating burdens of proof between employer and employee in unemployment compensation proceedings
- Secondary sources on substantial-evidence review of Commissioner of Economic Security benefit determinations
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.