This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-2092
Ahmed Ghanim,
Relator,
vs.
FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed May 26, 2015
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32906446-3
Ahmed Ghanim, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)
FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, c/o TALX UCM Services Inc., St. Louis,
Missouri (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development)
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Relator challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) determination that he is
ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a
good reason caused by his employer. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Ahmed Ghanim worked at respondent FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print
Services, Inc. (FedEx) as center consultant until he quit due to stressful working
conditions and health concerns. Relator worked approximately 38 hours per week. As
part of his employment, relator was required to lift packages over 50 pounds and to stand
on his feet for eight hours at a time. On September 20, 2014, relator quit his employment
because he started having pain in his back and hands. In addition, his job required him to
multi-task, which caused him “extreme headaches.”
Relator applied for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DEED determined that relator was
ineligible for unemployment benefits. After an administrative appeal, a ULJ held an
evidentiary hearing. Relator represented himself, and no one appeared on behalf of
FedEx. The ULJ determined that relator did not have good reason to quit caused by the
employer and that he did not quit out of medical necessity. The ULJ found that relator
quit specifically because “the job became too difficult for him.” The ULJ also found that
relator did not notify his employer of his health issues prior to quitting. Relator moved
2
for reconsideration. The ULJ denied the request for reconsideration and affirmed his
prior ruling.
Relator appeals.
DECISION
Relator appeals from the ULJ’s decision that he is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because he quit his employment with FedEx. This court reviews a ULJ’s
decision to deny unemployment benefits to determine whether the findings, inferences,
conclusions, or decision are in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of
statutory authority, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by an error of law,
unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d) (2014). The ULJ’s factual findings are viewed in the light most favorable to
the decision being reviewed, and this court defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations.
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Whether the ULJ’s
findings establish that the applicant falls within a statutory exception to ineligibility
presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See, e.g., Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g
& Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594-95 (Minn. App. 2006); Madsen v. Adam Corp., 647
N.W.2d 35, 38-39 (Minn. App. 2002) (reviewing application of the medical-necessity
exception de novo).
The purpose of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law is to assist those
who are “unemployed through no fault of their own.” Minn. Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1
(2014). The law is “remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding
unemployment benefits,” and any provision precluding receipt of benefits must be
3
narrowly construed. Minn. Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2014). There is no burden of proof
in unemployment-insurance proceedings, Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 2 (2014), nor is
there equitable denial or allowance of benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2014).
An employee who quits employment is generally ineligible for unemployment
benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2014). “A quit from employment occurs when
the decision to end the employment was, at the time the employment ended, the
employee’s.” Id., subd. 2(a). It is undisputed that relator quit his employment. An
employee who quits employment, however, is eligible for benefits if the employee quits
because of one of the exceptions listed in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1.
Relator challenges the ULJ’s conclusion that none of the exceptions in Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 1, apply to his case. One exception found in Minn. Stat. § 268.095 is
when a “serious illness or injury made it medically necessary that the applicant quit,”
provided that (1) the applicant informs the employer about the medical problem, (2) the
applicant requests an accommodation, and (3) no reasonable accommodation is made
available. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(7).
Relator claims that he quit because he was unable to complete the job
requirements due primarily to back pain. But relator did not inform FedEx of his back
issues prior to quitting, and the ULJ found that relator “never went to see a doctor, never
notified the employer of his issues, and did not request an accommodation prior to
quitting.” Minnesota Statutes section 268.095, subdivision 1(7), is clear that a request for
an accommodation is a prerequisite to the application of the medical-necessity exception.
4
Because relator did not inform FedEx of his medical issues and did not submit a
request to his employer for an accommodation, relator did not meet all of the
requirements for the medical-necessity exception. The ULJ did not err in refusing to
apply the medical-necessity exception to relator’s situation. Accordingly, the record
substantially supports the ULJ’s decision that relator quit his employment without a good
reason caused by his employer and is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.
5