This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15

- 1290 Vickie L. Carlson, Relator,

vs. Young America, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

Filed December 21, 2015 Reversed Cleary , Chief Judge Department of Employment and Ec onomic Development

File No. 33699489

- 3

Vickie L. Carlson, Hamburg, Minnesota (pro se relator) Young America, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (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 Cleary , Chief Judge; Ross , Judge; and Hooten , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

CLEARY , Chief Judge

In th is certiorari appeal, relator Vickie L. Carlson challenges the determination of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit without a good reason caused by the employer. We reverse.

FACTS Relator was employed as a client associate by respondent Young America , LLC from January 2, 1997, through May 29, 2015. Relator commuted less than five miles one way to her job. In February 2015, Young America announced that it was moving its operations from Norwood Young America to Minneapolis. The new location is 55 miles

from relator’s home. Relator testified that she could not commute to the new location because she suffers from vertigo when driving or riding long distances and is intimidated by hea vy traffic. Relator quit her employment. Relator applied for unemployment benefits. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ( DEED ) issued an initial determination of ineligibility. Relator appealed and a hearing was scheduled be fore a n ULJ. The ULJ determined that relator quit her employment and had not established the application of an exception to ineligibility for unemployment benefits based on her quit. The ULJ reasoned that relator did not have a good reason caused by her employer to quit because Young

America’s relocation “ was not so far that an average, reasonable worker would quit and become unemployed rather than work at the new location. ” She “could have driven to Minneapolis” and “the medical necess ity in this matter is of [relator’s] own making because3

of her decision not to drive” to Minneapolis. The ULJ affirmed the ineligibility

det ermination on reconsideration. Relator filed this certiorari appeal to challenge the ULJ’s decision . In lieu of a respondent’s brief

, the DEED filed a letter requesting that this court reverse the ULJ’s decision. Young America did not participate in the proceedings before the ULJ and has not appeared in this appeal

. This court ordered expedited consideration of the appeal by a specia l term panel on N ovember 24, 2015.

D E C I S I O N In reviewing the decision of a n ULJ, this court may reverse if the substantial rights of the relator may have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are affected by erro r of law, unsupported by the substantial evidence in the record, or arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) ( Supp. 2015 ). An applicant who quit her employment is ineligible for unemployment benefits unless a statutory exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2014). One exception applies when the employee quit “ because of a good reason caused by the employer, ” id. , subd. 1(1) (2014), which is defined as a reason

(1) that is directly related to the employment and for which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.4

Id. , subd. 3(a) (2014). This three

- part analysis sets forth an objective standard to be “applied to the specific facts of each case.” Id. , subd. 3(b) (2014). T his court reviews de novo whether an empl oyee has satisfied the standard. Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc ., 819 N.W.2d 715, 723 (Minn. App. 2012). Relator quit her job for Young America when the company moved its operations from Norwood Young America to downtown Minneapolis. DEED asserts that the ULJ erred by determining that Young America’ s relocation was not a good reason caused by the employer for her to quit. We agree. Reporting for work at Young America’s new location not only would have added about 100 miles to relator’s daily roundtrip co mmute, but would have required her to commute into the Twin Cities from her rural home. This change would have resulted in additional uncompensated commuting time, as well as a significant increase in commuting expenses. We conclude that these circumstan ces were directly related to the employment, adverse to relator, and would have compelled an average, reasonable worker in relator’s position to quit employment.

Reversed.