This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Eugene N. Ashong,
Independent School District #625,
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 8902 04
Eugene N. Ashong, 10624 Wren Street NW, Coon Rapids, MN 55433-4025 (pro se relator)
Lee B. Nelson, Linda A. Holmes, 332 Minnesota Street, E200 First National Bank Building, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent commissioner)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Minge, Judge.
Relator challenges the denial of a new hearing and the determination that he was discharged for misconduct. Because relator was properly notified of the hearing, failed to complete certain job duties, and was insubordinate, we affirm.
Relator Eugene N.
Ashong was employed as a custodian by respondent
Relator was initially denied unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator appealed the determination and a hearing was set before an unemployment law judge (ULJ). Because relator failed to appear for the hearing, the ULJ heard testimony only from the school district. The ULJ concluded that the school district had discharged relator for employment misconduct and that he was disqualified from receiving benefits.
Relator appealed the ULJ’s decision to the commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development. Relator claimed that he had missed the first hearing because a family member did not give him his mail, and he requested a new hearing. The commissioner’s representative denied the request for a new hearing, affirmed the ULJ’s decision that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, and concluded that relator was disqualified from receiving benefits. This certiorari appeal follows.
The first issue is
whether the commissioner’s representative erred by denying relator a new
evidentiary hearing. We give deference
to the decision of the commissioner’s representative to grant or deny a request
for a new hearing. Goodwin v. BPS Guard Servs., Inc., 524 N.W.2d 28, 30 (
Relator claims that he failed to appear at the hearing before the ULJ because his daughter did not give him the hearing notice sent by the Department of Employment and Economic Development. There is no claim that the department improperly served relator or that the hearing notice was sent to the wrong address. Because relator should have been aware of the hearing, the commissioner’s representative did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to remand for a rehearing.
The second issue is whether the commissioner’s representative erred in finding relator was discharged due to employment misconduct and thus disqualified from receiving benefits.
On certiorari appeal,
we accord particular deference to the decision of the commissioner’s
representative. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (
When an employee
is discharged for employment misconduct, he or she is disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits.
The commissioner’s representative determined that, despite prior warnings, relator failed to lock the exterior doors at the school where he worked and that relator was insubordinate to a supervisor. The commissioner’s representative concluded that relator’s behavior showed a substantial lack of concern for his employment and violated the reasonable standards of behavior expected by the school district. The record supports the commissioner’s representative’s finding that relator failed to lock all exterior school doors after repeated warnings and that relator yelled at and threatened a supervisor. Such conduct evinces both a substantial lack of concern for the employment and a violation of reasonable standards of behavior. We conclude that the commissioner’s representative was correct in determining relator’s actions constituted misconduct that disqualifies him from receiving unemployment benefits.
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