Levens v. Co-Rect Bar & Restaurant Supply
This text of 356 N.W.2d 774 (Levens v. Co-Rect Bar & Restaurant Supply) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SUMMARY OPINION
FACTS
This appeal is from a decision of the Commissioner of Economic Security affirming a referee’s finding that relator failed, without good cause, to accept suitable reemployment with a base period employer and was disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 2 (Supp.1983).
Relator refused an offer of reemployment from her base period employer on May 27, 1983. The employer’s offer of a night shift position does not fall within the definition of sexual harassment outlined in Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(1) (Supp.1983), nor does it, by itself, meet the definition of sexual discrimination provided by Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(5) (1982). Relator’s concern about arranging child care was insufficient cause to reject the reemployment offer. Preiss v. Commissioner of Economic Security, 347 N.W.2d 74, 76-77 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
DECISION
Under the narrow scope of review available to this court, White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn.1983), we find sufficient evidence to sustain the Commissioner’s findings.
The Commissioner’s decision that relator, without good cause, failed to accept an offer of suitable reemployment and was [775]*775properly disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 286.09, subd. 2, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
356 N.W.2d 774, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levens-v-co-rect-bar-restaurant-supply-minnctapp-1984.