Eaton v. Park and Recreation Board of Minneapolis, No. A06-788 (Minn. App. 3/27/2007)
| Decision Date | 27 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A06-788.,A06-788. |
| Parties | Stephanie T. Eaton, Relator, v. Park and Recreation Board of Minneapolis, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Department of Employment and Economic Development, File No. 345 06.
Stephanie T. Eaton, (pro se relator)
Ann E. Walther, Karin E. Peterson, Rice, Michels & Walther, LLP, (for respondent Park and Recreation Board of Minneapolis)
Lee B. Nelson, Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
On certiorari appeal from the unemployment-law judge's decision that relator was discharged for misconduct and, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, relator argues that the employer's witnesses were not truthful and their testimony was contradictory, and that she had reasonable explanations for various incidents. We affirm.
When reviewing the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), this court may affirm the decision, remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are "(1) in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (6) arbitrary or capricious." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2006).
The ULJ determined that relator Stephanie T. Eaton was discharged for employment misconduct. Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact. Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel, 562 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. App. 1997). The ULJ's factual findings are viewed in the light most favorable to the decision, Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996), and will not be disturbed when substantial evidence supports them. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5). Because credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ, they are accorded deference on appeal. Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook, 695 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn. App. 2005). Whether the act committed by the employee constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which we review de novo. Scheunemann, 562 N.W.2d at 34.
Employment misconduct is "any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1) that displays clearly a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that displays clearly a substantial lack of concern for the employment." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004).
Relator first argues that the witnesses who testified on behalf of respondent Park and Recreation Board of Minneapolis (PRBM) were not truthful and provided contradictory testimony. "When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, we defer to the decision-maker's ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations." Nichols v. Reliant Eng'g & Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006). The ULJ found that relator's testimony was contradictory and raised questions about her credibility. The ULJ also found that testimony and evidence supported the misconduct. Therefore, because the ULJ believed PRBM's witnesses and disbelieved relator, this court will not substitute its credibility determinations, and relator's argument that witnesses were not truthful is meritless.
Relator next argues that she did not engage in misconduct because she had reasonable explanations for the behavior that PRBM used to terminate her employment. The ULJ found that relator was terminated because of continued issues with her tardiness and absences, the accuracy of her timesheets, and her decision-making. The decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Relator argues that she was not absent or tardy and that her supervisor, Al Bangoura, did not testify truthfully because she knew that he "misdirected funding," and he terminated her to keep her quiet. But relator never raised this issue before the ULJ, and the ULJ found that Bangoura was credible and that relator was often late for work.
An employer has a "right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism." Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 118, 120 (Minn. App. 1985); see also McLean v. Plastics, Inc., 378 N.W.2d 104, 107 (Minn. App. 1985) (); Evenson v. Omnetic's, 344 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Minn. App. 1984) (). Similarly, an employee's failure to give proper notice of an absence may demonstrate a lack of concern for employment that constitutes disqualifying misconduct. Edwards v. Yellow Freight Sys., 342 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. App. 1984); see also Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller, 390 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Minn. App. 1986) (). This principle is particularly applicable when the employee has been previously warned. McLean, 378 N.W.2d at 107. But an employer is not required to give a warning before an employee can be terminated for employment misconduct. See Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn. 1981) ().
Here, relator's scheduled hours were 4:00 p.m. to 9:00/9:30 p.m. Bangoura testified that he explained to relator that because she worked at the front desk, her attendance and punctuality were critical. Bangoura told relator that if she could not make it to work to call and someone could fill in for her. On August 15, relator was 30 minutes late for work and failed to call. On September 28, relator was 30 minutes late for work, but she did call. On September 30, relator was 15 minutes late for work and failed to call. On October 12 and 13, relator was 30 minutes late and failed to call. Relator explained to Bangoura that she was late because she was picking up her child from school. On October 17, Bangoura adjusted relator's start time to 4:30 p.m. But relator was still late for work without calling three times between October 20 and 28. Although relator denied ever being late, she agreed that Bangoura adjusted her start time, but offers no explanation for this change in her schedule. Thus, it was reasonable for the ULJ to find that relator was late for work. Bangoura's request for punctuality and consistent attendance was reasonable, especially when he attempted to accommodate relator's schedule, and relator's failure to follow this request displayed a violation of her employer's standards of behavior and constituted misconduct.
Relator also argues that she simply made mistakes with her timesheet. Relator claims that no PRBM employee completed his or her timesheet as instructed. But a violation of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial