Minnesota Supreme Court, 1975

Scott v. Photo Center, Inc.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 14, 1975 · Per Curiam

235 N.W.2d 616; 306 Minn. 535; 1975 Minn. LEXIS 1273 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Rufer, Hefte, Pemberton, Schulze & Sorlie and Robert J. Sefkow, for relator., Warren Spannaus, Attorney General, Peter W. Sipkins, Solicitor General, Peter O. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, and Louis K. Robarás, Special Assistant Attorney General, for respondent commissioner.

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 2015, 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

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

Cook v. Playworks (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
Burke v. Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
Boucher v. Maine Employment Security Commission (Me. 1983)
Guillard v. Department of Employment (Idaho 1979)
Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf (Minn. 1981)
John L. Corrigan, Relator v. North Metro Harness Initiative, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Appeal of Easton v. Hanson School District 30-1 (S.D. 2013)
Consumer Action Network v. Tielman (D.C. 2012)
Haugen v. Superior Development, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
Miller v. International Express Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
Wood v. Menard, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)
Couch v. NC EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
Couch v. North Carolina Employment Security Commission (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
Moore v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Simonson v. Thin Film Technology Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
Rutten v. Rockie International, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Foy v. J.E.K. Industries (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Hanson v. I. D. S. Properties Management Co. (Minn. 1976)
Grier v. Department of Employment Security (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
International Spike, Inc. v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, Department for Human Resources (Ky. Ct. App. 1980)
Tombigbee Lightweight Aggreg. Corp. v. Roberts (Ala. Civ. App. 1977)
Armco Steel Corp. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission, Division of Employment Security (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

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.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Writ of certiorari to review a decision of the commissioner of employment services holding that claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Minn. St. 268.09 because, although he voluntarily terminated his employment, he did so with good cause attributable to his employer. We affirm.

The first issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the commissioner’s finding that a change from a fixed salary to a commission method of determining wages insisted upon by employer would have resulted in a 25-percent wage cut. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support that finding.

The second issue is whether claimant had good cause for terminating his employment or is disqualified as one who voluntarily terminates *536 his employment “without good cause attributable to the employer” under Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1).

In three cases we have considered the issue of disqualification where a claimant either quit work because of a pay reduction in his regular job or, when faced with a layoff, refused to accept an alternate job at a reduction in salary. Lewis v. Minneapolis Moline, Inc. 288 Minn. 432, 181 N. W. 2d 701 (1970); Hessler v. American Television & Radio Co. 258 Minn. 541, 104 N. W. 2d 876 (1960); Bowman v. Troy Launderers & Cleaners, Inc. 215 Minn. 226, 9 N. W. 2d 506 (1943). Although none of these cases is factually similar to this case, they support the general rule that a substantial pay reduction gives an employee good cause for quitting. See, Broden, Law of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, § 11.06; Annotation, 100 A. L. R. 2d 1057; 81 C. J. S., Social Security and Public Welfare, § 170.

We hold that the commissioner did not err in concluding that this was a substantial reduction giving claimant good cause to terminate. In Bunny’s Waffle Shop v. California Unemployment Comm. 24 Cal. 2d 735, 151 P. 2d 224 (1944), the California Supreme Court held that a 25-percent reduction in wages constituted good cause for quitting a job. Because the record supports the finding that this reduction prompted claimant to leave his employment, we affirm the commissioner’s decision refusing to disqualify claimant.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.