No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the unemployment-law judge's decision, finding that Van Wyhe did not perform services for 32 hours per week merely by being on call at home without actively working, and therefore was eligible for unemployment benefits.
Van Wyhe v. Thermospas: Court Rules Being "On Call" at Home Doesn't Count as Full-Time Work
This case involved Jolene Van Wyhe, who worked for Thermospas Hot Tub Products and applied for unemployment benefits after losing her job. The Department of Employment and Economic Development initially denied her benefits, claiming she had worked 32 hours per week and therefore didn't qualify. However, Van Wyhe argued that much of those "work hours" consisted of simply being on call at home, not actively working.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with Van Wyhe. The court ruled that merely being available to take calls at home does not count as actively performing work services. They found that Van Wyhe had not actually worked 32 hours per week, making her eligible for unemployment benefits.
This decision matters for workers because it clarifies an important distinction: being on call or available to work is different from actually working. If you're required to be reachable but aren't actively performing job duties, those hours may not count toward your total work time for unemployment benefit purposes. This protects workers from having their benefit eligibility unfairly reduced due to passive availability requirements.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion…
A court properly dismisses sex or sexual orientation employment-discrimination claims against a church under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) if the allegations in the complaint, construed in plaintiff's favor, establish that the court's adjudication of plaintiff's claims would violate the religious…
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.