The Minnesota Appeals Court ruled Monday a former Goodhue woman was eligible for unemployment benefits after leaving her job because of child care issues.
The court ruled Jamie Gonzalez Diaz, now of Ellsworth, Wis., should be allowed to receive unemployment benefits after leaving her job as an eligibility recruitment selection enrollment and attendance coordinator at Three Rivers Community Action Inc. in May 2017.
Reached by phone Tuesday, Gonzalez Diaz said she felt relief and vindication in the court’s decision.
"I had over $3,000 in benefits that I got before my former employer appealed it that I was looking at having to pay back, not to mention benefits that I should have gotten all along," she said. "I feel relief. I feel vindicated, strong. What they did wasn’t right."
In Minnesota, employees who quit their jobs because of loss of child care still could be eligible for unemployment, but only if their request for time off or other accommodation is denied.
ADVERTISEMENT
As in Gonzalez Diaz’s case, an employee who requested and received accommodations because of child care unavailability, but then had those accommodations taken away, meets the accommodation-request requirement, the court ruled.
"Recognizing the importance of child care, the Legislature created an exception for individuals who quit because of a loss of child care after they requested accommodation, if no reasonable accommodation is available," Judge Lucinda E. Jesson wrote in the ruling.
The exception does not require employers to accommodate employees who are having child care issues but allows employees who quit because of a lack of childcare to be eligible for unemployment benefits.
"The facts of this case present precisely the situation that the statute protects. Gonzalez Diaz lost child care, and while her employer was accommodating at first, eventually the employer informed her there would no longer be any accommodations," Jesson wrote.
"And afterwards, when Gonzalez Diaz used time off to accommodate herself, she was immediately told she would have to work her scheduled hours. For purposes of the statute, Gonzalez Diaz requested an accommodation, and none was afforded to her, resulting in her needing to quit to care for her children."
Gonzalez Diaz began working for Three Rivers in June 2013 and moved into the coordinator position in March 2015. It was around that time she began having child care issues, according to court documents. Initially, Three Rivers accommodated Gonzalez Diaz’s issues by agreeing to a flexible shift as well as allowing her to request and use paid time off to fill in the gaps in her schedule.
This arrangement continued until the middle of May 2017 when Gonzalez Diaz informed her employer she had lost all of her child care, according to court documents. A few days later, she was informed by her supervisors she would no longer be accommodated with a different shift schedule and that the "flexible hours were no longer working," according to court documents.
It was during that meeting Gonzalez Diaz was told termination was a possible consequence of not working the requested hours.
ADVERTISEMENT
At the start of the week of May 30, Gonzalez Diaz showed up on time for work but after her shift ended she sent an email to her supervisor saying she had lost child care for the next day and she cleared out her personal belongings as she assumed she was terminated, according to court documents.
"The next morning the supervisors met to discuss Gonzalez Diaz’s email, and they came to the conclusion that she quit," the ruling read. "Three Rivers then sent an email and text to Gonzalez Diaz stating the company accepted her resignation."
Gonzalez Diaz filed for unemployment and was initially granted it before Three Rivers appealed the decision. At the hearing, an unemployment law judge ruled Gonzalez Diaz quit and the loss-of--care exception did not apply because she could have asked for an additional accommodation for the days she could not acquire child care.
Writing a separate opinion, Judge Michael L. Kirk ruled Gonzalez Diaz, of Goodhue, did not quit her job but rather was fired. That decision differed from both an unemployment-law judge’s ruling as well as the majority of the appeals court justices.
"Here, Three Rivers decided that Gonzalez Diaz’s employment would end when it told her that if she did not work a scheduled shift due to a lack of child care, she would be terminated," Kirk ruled. "Gonzalez Diaz did not have any input into this decision-making process, and it was not her decision to end her employment. Gonzalez Diaz did not quit."
Despite the struggle, Gonzalez said she understood Three Rivers actions but said it still didn’t make it any good.
"Three Rivers is a wonderful agency," she said.
