This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Theresa C. Bady,
Independent School District No. 272,
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed January 21, 2005
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 17191 03
B. J. Robichaud, Jed B. Iverson, Robichaud & Nepp, P.A., 211 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for relator)
Maggie R. Wallner, Kimberly Hewitt Boyd, Rider Bennett, LLP, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4900, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent ISD No. 272)
Lee B. Nelson, Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Parker, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Relator challenges the decision of the commissioner’s representative that she was discharged for employment misconduct and therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Relator Theresa Bady was employed as a site supervisor and special-education router for respondent Independent School District No. 272 in Eden Prairie. Derrick Agate, the school district’s Director of Transportation, was Bady’s supervisor.
On June 16, 2003, Agate gave Bady a letter addressing several problems with her work performance, including inaccurately recording the hours on her timecards and not following her work schedule. The letter instructed Bady to correct these problems immediately or face discipline, which could include termination. Also, during Bady’s employment, the school district periodically distributed handouts describing transportation-department policy, including a prohibition against overtime work without pre-approval.
All requests from transportation-department employees to work overtime required Agate’s approval. After receiving the letter from Agate and a department-policy handout distributed two weeks earlier, Bady nevertheless continued to work overtime without Agate’s approval. Bady also took time off, made changes to her work schedule, and worked from home without notifying or requesting approval from Agate. Bady’s timecards reflect hours worked when security logs show that she was not in the building, and on one occasion she asked a coworker to falsify a timecard for her.
On September 30, 2003, the school district discharged Bady for refusing to comply with her supervisor’s directives, for refusing to work the hours she was scheduled to work, and for a continuing pattern of inaccurately recording her work hours. In October 2003, a Department of Economic Security adjudicator found that Bady was discharged for employment misconduct and, thus, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. In December 2003, an unemployment law judge (ULJ) reversed the adjudicator’s decision, and in March 2004, the commissioner’s representative reversed the ULJ’s decision, disqualifying Bady from receiving unemployment benefits. This certiorari appeal follows.
Bady challenges the determination of the commissioner’s representative that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for employment misconduct. Whether a discharged employee engaged in employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). This court defers to the findings of the commissioner’s representative that are reasonably sustained by the record. Lolling v. Midwest Patrol, 545 N.W.2d 372, 377 (Minn. 1996). But whether an act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Id.
A person discharged from employment because of employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (Supp. 2003). Employment misconduct is “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.” Id., subd. 6 (Supp. 2003).
Bady argues that her actions did not constitute employment misconduct because the school district’s rules were “Kafkaesque.” The commissioner’s representative concluded that Bady’s continuing failure to comply with her employer’s directives was both a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the school district had the right to reasonably expect of its employees and a demonstration of Bady’s substantial lack of concern for her employment.
The commissioner’s representative found that (1) Bady was aware of the school district’s policies prohibiting overtime work without prior approval, requiring precise recording of hours on timecards, and barring employee modification of work schedules; (2) Bady worked overtime several times without obtaining prior approval; (3) Bady inaccurately reported her hours on her timecards several times and on one occasion asked a coworker to falsify a timecard; and (4) Bady adjusted her work schedule without prior approval. Bady does not challenge the findings of the commissioner’s representative, and the record reasonably supports them. Bady argues that a previous supervisor approved of her actions but cites no authority to support a claim that the approval of conduct by a previous supervisor obviates an employee’s responsibility to adhere to an employer’s reasonable policies.
When an employee knowingly violates a reasonable employer policy, that employee commits employment misconduct. Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 806. Multiple violations of the same rule demonstrate an employee’s substantial lack of concern for her employment. See Gilkeson v. Indus. Parts & Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1986). Falsifying a timecard in violation of employer policy is also employment misconduct. Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc., 378 N.W.2d 660, 663 (Minn. App. 1985). Bady knowingly and repeatedly violated the school district’s policies regarding overtime work, timecard reporting, and work-schedule modification.
The commissioner’s representative did not err by concluding that Bady committed employment misconduct that disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits by engaging in conduct that was both a serious violation of the standards of behavior that the school district had a right to reasonably expect of her and a demonstration of a substantial lack of concern for her employment.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
 The revisor’s office inadvertently substituted the term “ineligible for” for the term “disqualified from” in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (Supp. 2003). See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (2002) (using term “disqualified from”); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 11 (making other changes to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1, but retaining term “disqualified from”); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 20(j), (k) (directing revisor to change the term “disqualified from” to “ineligible for” only in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 12, and then to renumber to Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13b).