by IAJ Law, LLC on February 6, 2012
Often, applicants seeking unemployment benefits in Minnesota will collect Social Security benefits too. However, this issue is extremely complicated and should be reviewed by an unemployment lawyer. For more information, please visit the following web site: Minnesota-unemployment.info.
Collecting Social Security benefits and unemployment benefits in Minnesota is complicated because Minnesota is able to attach a 40% penalty onto an unemployment overpayment when an applicant mistakenly collects both Social Security benefits and unemployment benefits at the same time.
The rule in Minnesota is that a person who is 62 years of age or older and applies for unemployment benefits must tell the unemployment office if they applied or intend to apply for Social Security benefits for old age for any week during the benefit year. Telling the unemployment office that you intend to collect Social Security benefits is a requirement while filing a continued request for unemployment benefits. If the person seeking unemployment benefits is receiving Social Security benefits, files for Social Security benefits, or intends to file for Social Security benefits, an amount equal to 50% of the Social Security benefit prorated on a weekly basis shall be subtracted from any amount owed as an unemployment benefit.
There is only one exception to this general rule and that is a person who is trying to collect unemployment benefits in Minnesota and Social Security benefits at the same time is the person who was collecting Social Security benefits while still employed. This exception is viewed by Minnesota Courts very narrowly because the unemployment office in Minnesota wants to ensure that the person seeking unemployment benefits and Social Security benefits shows a desire and an ability to work.
Therefore, if you are trying to decide whether or not you can collect unemployment benefits and Social Security benefits at the same time, please have your case reviewed by an unemployment lawyer to prevent the attachment of a 40% penalty or fine in Minnesota.
by IAJ Law, LLC on January 30, 2012
Minnesota employment misconduct can mean an act of dishonesty. Even engaging in one act of dishonesty can be viewed as employment misconduct. For this reason, it is critical that you seek the opinion of an unemployment lawyer if you were terminated for reasons described as employment misconduct. You can read more about employment misconduct at: Minnesota-unemployment.info.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reviewed a case regarding employment misconduct under Fehl v. Holiday Station Stores, Inc. The specific issue reviewed was whether or not the employee’s conduct was a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer had the right to reasonably expect from its store manager. If yes, the employee was terminated for employment misconduct. If no, the employee was terminated for reasons other than misconduct. An employee who is terminated for reasons other than employment misconduct is eligible for unemployment benefits. In Minnesota, an employee who is terminated for employment misconduct is not eligible for unemployment benefits.
Under the case referenced above, the Minnesota Unemployment Appeals Court determined that the employee was terminated for employment misconduct. Here, the employee was a store manager of a gas station. The applicant was terminated from his job because he submitted accounting reports that suggested that the store had a balanced safe. Unfortunately, this was not true and the safe was missing money in the amount of $500. Further, the applicant failed to timely inform his district manager of the missing cash. As a result, the unemployment appeals court determined that the applicant for unemployment benefits was ineligible as a result of being fired for employment misconduct.
In the past, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that theft of less than four dollars’ worth of the employer’s product amounted to employment misconduct because the employer no longer could entrust the employee to fulfill her responsibilities as a cashier. Although the applicant was not terminated for theft, the Court concluded that the applicant was dishonest. Dishonesty is viewed as employment misconduct.
Therefore, the unemployment appeal was decided against the employee because the Unemployment Court in Minnesota decided that the employee was terminated for employment misconduct as defined under Minnesota law.
