 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Itron8/23/2005
Relator Bonnie M. Smith challenges the determination of a senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that relator was discharged for misconduct and therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the record supports the SURJ's decision, we affirm.
FACTS
Relator was hired on June 16, 2003, as a senior production assembler by Itron, a company that specializes in electronics manufacturing. Itron's "zero-tolerance" policy against sexual harassment is explicitly stated in the employee handbook:
It is the company's policy to maintain a work environment free from offensive or degrading comments or conduct. . . . Employees have a right to be free from sexual harassment. Itron will not condone actions or words which would be considered sexual harassment or coercive.
On December 15, 2003, relator signed a form acknowledging that she attended harassment-sensitivity training, understood the company's policy on harassment, and had a responsibility not to engage in behaviors that constituted harassment.
The following March, relator was given a verbal disciplinary warning for " ringing pornography into the workplace and creating a harassing environment for others," as a result of viewing and passing on to another employee a novelty "camera" containing a pornographic picture of men. The employee to whom relator passed the item complained to the supervisor.
On June 14, 2004, another employee lodged a sexual-harassment complaint against relator. Supervisors investigated the matter by talking to co-workers, who verified that relator, during work time, used inappropriate language and made sexual jokes and remarks that they found offensive. In an interview with a supervisor, relator admitted that she had told some sexual jokes to the complaining co-worker, but said she stopped when the co-worker asked her to stop. The employer concluded that relator and the male co-worker who brought the complaint against her had mutually engaged in inappropriate sexual banter. The employer discharged relator and the complaining employee for violating the company's sexual-harassment policy.
Relator applied for unemployment benefits and was initially determined to be disqualified from receiving benefits because relator was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator appealed, and a ULJ reversed, concluding that the discharge was for reasons other than employment misconduct and that relator was entitled to benefits. The employer appealed, and a SURJ reversed the ULJ, determining that relator committed employment misconduct and was disqualified from receiving benefits. This appeal by writ of certiorari followed.
DECISION
On appeal, this courtexamines the decision of the SURJ rather than the decision of the ULJ. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). In doing so, it views the findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb them when they are reasonably sustained by the evidence. Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). This court defers to the ability of the SURJ to weigh any conflicting evidence and to make credibility determinations. See Whitehead v. Moonlight Nursing Care, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 350, 352 (Minn. App. 1995).
A person discharged from employment because of employment misconduct is disqualified fromreceiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. ยง 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp. 2003). Employment misconduct is defined as "any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1) that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employe
Page 1 2 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|