This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Pearl T. Shamara,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed September 12, 2000
Department of Economic Security
File No. 385999
Pearl T. Shamara, 3010 Hennepin Avenue S., Apt. 105, Minneapolis, MN 55408-2614 (pro se relator)
Marquette Hotel, Hotel Management of Minneapolis, Inc., Attn: Darcy Paul, 710 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (respondent employer)
Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert St., St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner)
Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Pro se relator Pearl T. Shamara challenges a decision by a representative of the respondent Commissioner of Economic Security disqualifying her from receiving reemployment compensation benefits. Because the evidence reasonably supports the commissioner’s representative’s decision that Shamara was discharged by respondent Marquette Hotel (the hotel) for employment misconduct after she violated several of the hotel’s attendance policies, we affirm.
In reemployment compensation cases, we review “the findings of the commissioner or the commissioner’s representative, not those of the [reemployment compensation judge], even though those findings might involve witness credibility.” Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995). We view the commissioner’s findings in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the decision. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989); White v. Metropolitan Med. Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983).
An employee is disqualified from receiving benefits if discharged because of employment misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp. 1999). “Employment misconduct” is defined as any intentional conduct that “disregards the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect of the employee” or any negligent conduct that “demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a). But “absence because of illness or injury with proper notice to the employer” is not employment misconduct. Id., subd. 6(b).
The commissioner’s representative found: (1) the employee handbook required an employee to call in two hours before a scheduled shift to report any absence and to provide medical documentation verifying any absence due to illness after two consecutive days; (2) Shamara acknowledged that she knew of these policies; (3) since February 1999, Shamara had received several oral warnings for attendance violations; (4) in August 1999, Shamara was suspended for an attendance violation and was specifically told that if she committed another violation she would be discharged; (5) Shamara was scheduled to work a shift beginning at 5:30 a.m. during the week of Monday, September 27 through Friday, October 1, 1999; (6) on Saturday, September 25, Shamara had oral surgery and did not believe she could report to work during the week in question because her mouth was swollen and she was in pain; (7) although Shamara complied with the hotel’s call-in policy on September 27, she did not call in at all on September 28 and called in at noon on September 29; and (8) on September 29, Shamara provided the hotel with a handwritten note from her mother stating that she had had her wisdom teeth pulled, but she failed to provide the required medical documentation until October 5. These findings are reasonably supported by the evidence in the record.
This court has consistently held that an employee who fails to properly notify an employer of intended absences from work commits disqualifying misconduct. See, e.g., Kemp v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 385 N.W.2d 879, 882 (Minn. App. 1986) (employee repeatedly failed to comply with written rules and regulations on attendance); Gustafson v. IRC Indus., 374 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Minn. App. 1985) (employee who, after two oral warnings about keeping employer informed if he was going to be absent, failed to call in that he was going to be late); Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing, 343 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn. App. 1984) (employee repeatedly failed to notify employer of intended absence from work); Edwards v. Yellow Freight Sys., 342 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. App. 1984) (employee repeatedly failed to comply with employer’s regulation to provide two hours’ advance notice when unable to report for work). We therefore affirm the decision of the commissioner’s representative that Shamara committed employment misconduct when she failed to comply with hotel policies and failed to properly notify the hotel of her absences.