Court Opinion

ID: 9736921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:10:01.955825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.483685
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although I may disagree with the decision of the referee and the Commissioner’s representative, I would affirm because the “narrow standard of review” on appeal requires this court to defer to the Commissioner’s factual findings. See Reserve Mining Co. v. Gorecki, 316 N.W.2d 547, 549 (Minn.1982); see also, Nyberg v. R.N. Cardozo & Brother, Inc., 243 Minn. 361, 364, 67 N.W.2d 821, 823 (1954). The Commissioner’s findings must be reviewed in a light most favorable to the decision and cannot be disturbed “if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them.” Reserve Mining Co., 316 N.W.2d at 549. The record before this court contains evidence which reasonably supports the Commissioner’s findings.
Viewed in a light most favorable to the decision, the record shows the employer did take steps to curb Varga’s objectionable behavior by meeting with Varga on at least two occasions and discussing the problem with him. The extent and frequency of Wetterhahn’s complaints and the employer’s response to her complaints were established largely by testimony which was neither conclusive nor definitive. Under these circumstances, I would defer to the fact-finder’s unique opportunity to judge the credibility of witness testimony. See Nyberg, 243 Minn. at 365, 67 N.W.2d at 824; Tumquist v. Amoco Oil Co., 397 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). In light of the record on appeal, I cannot conclude Wetterhahn met her burden of proving her resignation was for “good cause attributable to the employer.” See Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(a) (Supp.1987); Marz v. Department of Employment Services, 256 N.W.2d 287, 289 (Minn.1977); see also Larson v. Department of Economic Security, 281 N.W.2d 667, 669 (Minn.1979) (the employee had a duty to inform his employer of alleged harassment to allow the employer an opportunity to correct the situation; the employer could not be charged with having caused the employee’s termination if the employer was not informed). I would affirm the Commissioner’s decision.