## Facts

- William Gutzkow worked as a laborer for Tru-Stone Corporation from August 1982 until he quit on March 21, 1986.
- Coworkers repeatedly taunted and harassed him, including name-calling and displaying vulgar drawings targeting him.
- A coworker pretended to spit in Gutzkow’s coffee, leading to a fight.
- Gutzkow’s immediate supervisor (section leader) also participated, including making derogatory remarks about Gutzkow’s wife and threatening to get him fired or make him quit.
- After the coffee incident, Gutzkow complained to the company president; the plant manager briefly transferred him for one day and told the parties to “get along,” but the harassment continued.
- After the supervisor’s explicit threat, Gutzkow again complained to the president, who promised to look into it; Gutzkow resigned the following Monday.
- The agency claims deputy denied unemployment benefits for lack of “good cause” to quit; a referee affirmed, finding Gutzkow did not give Tru-Stone reasonable time to fix the problem.
- The Commissioner’s representative reversed, finding Tru-Stone knew for weeks of substantial harassment, took no decisive steps, and the supervisor joined in; unemployment benefits were awarded.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s representative’s finding that Gutzkow quit for good cause attributable to the employer, entitling him to unemployment benefits.
2. Whether an employee must wait longer for an employer to act when the employer has already had weeks of notice and has taken only ineffective measures to stop harassment.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s representative.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the findings that Tru-Stone had notice of substantial harassment for several weeks, failed to take effective corrective action, and that the harassment included participation by Gutzkow’s supervisor.
- The court accepted the agency determination that Gutzkow reasonably concluded further complaints would not provide real relief and that quitting was for good cause attributable to the employer.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of unemployment decisions is limited; findings are upheld if supported by evidence a reasonable mind could accept, viewed in the light most favorable to the agency decision.
- Credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting testimony are for the Commissioner’s representative.
- “Good cause” to quit requires a real, substantial, and reasonable reason creating compulsion from external and necessitous circumstances, not a trivial or personal preference.
- Good cause must be attributable to the employer; persistent harassment can satisfy this standard when the employer knows of the conduct and fails to take effective, timely corrective steps, especially where a supervisor participates.
- An employee need not continue working indefinitely after the employer has had a reasonable opportunity to remedy serious workplace harassment but fails to provide meaningful relief.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed unemployment benefits because substantial evidence supported that sustained coworker and supervisor harassment, coupled with the employer’s prolonged notice and ineffective response, gave the employee good cause attributable to the employer to quit.


Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow, 400 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)