Trigo v. Lakes Medi-Van7/19/2005
Relator Linda Trigo challenges the decision by a senior unemployment review judge that she was discharged by respondent Lakes Medi-Van, Inc. for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because the review judge's credibility determinations are entitled to deference and because his decision is reasonably supported by evidence in the record, we affirm.
DECISION
Our review of unemployment insurance cases is narrow and limited to determining whether the record reasonably supports the decision of the senior unemployment review judge. Tuff v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995); Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382, 383-84 (Minn. 1992). We consider the review judge's findings in a light most favorable to his or her decision, and we give great deference to credibility determinations made by the review judge. Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996); Jenson v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 617 N.W.2d 627, 631 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 2000).
The issue of whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Schmidgall v. FilmTech Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact, but whether the act constitutes misconduct is a question of law subject to de novo review. Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel, 562 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. App. 1997).
An employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. ยง 268.095, subd. 4 (Supp. 2003). Employment misconduct is exclusively defined to include 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 employee, or (2) that demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employment.
Inefficiency, inadvertence, simple unsatisfactory conduct, a single incident that does not have a significant adverse impact on the employer, conduct an average reasonable employee would have engaged in under the circumstances, poor performance because of inability or incapacity, good faith errors in judgment if judgment was required, or absence because of illness or injury with proper notice to the employer, are not employment misconduct.
Id., subd. 6 (a), (e) (Supp. 2003). This definition recognizes that employees should not be held to a standard of perfection. Cf. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Minn. App. 2003) (interpreting similar language in 2002 statute).
Although perfection is not expected, employers have the right to expect that employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions. McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 1988); Vargas v. Northwest Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). When an employer makes a reasonable request that does not impose an unreasonable burden on the employee, the employee's refusal to comply with the request constitutes misconduct. Vargas, 673 N.W.2d at 206; Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn. App. 1985). A knowing violation of an employer's directives, policies, or procedures also constitutes employment misconduct because it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employer's interests. See, e.g., Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804; Gilkeson v. Indus. Parts & Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1986).
Here, the review judge made the following findings: (1) relator, who was employed as a driver to transport d
Page 1 2 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|