This opinion will be unpublished and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
Lyngblomsten Care Center, Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Patricia Carter, 1315 A Natchez
Lyngblomsten Care Center, Inc.,
Linda Alison Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Security, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent DEED)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Patricia Carter challenges the determination of a senior unemployment review judge’s (SURJ) that relator was discharged from respondent Lyngblomsten Care Center, Inc. for misconduct. Because the SURJ’s determination that relator committed misconduct is supported by the evidence, and not contrary to the statutory mandate, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
An employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (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.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2003). “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 . . . are not employment
determination that an employee is disqualified for reasons of misconduct is a
mixed question of fact and law. Colburn
Relator was employed by respondent as a certified nursing assistant from November 1997 until her employment was terminated on July 14, 2004. In June and July 2004, relator received three “write-ups” for improper phone use, disrespectful response to a supervisor’s instruction to manage time more effectively, and failure to record residents’ weight. Relator was asked to meet with respondent’s human relations director and director of nursing on July 13, 2004. The directors intended to talk to relator about the incidents, her behavior, and their concerns. Relator refused to directly address these incidents or her behavior; instead she complained of the working conditions and her supervisors. The directors suspended her with pay for the rest of the day, and, when relator returned the next day, she was discharged due to her conduct at the meeting.
Relator admits in her brief to this court that she did not limit her comments to the subject that the directors thought was pertinent, but she asserts that she was not “verbally abusive.” The directors stated that her conduct prevented discussion of her disciplinary issues.
reasonably expected relator to participate in her disciplinary meeting in a
constructive way. There is no evidence
or allegation of wrongdoing in respondent’s attempt to address the disciplinary
issues. Relator had notice of her
unacceptable conduct in the form of recent “write-ups,” instructions from
supervisors, and the “disciplinary action” that she refused to sign. Her refusal to discuss these specific
incidents was serious because it followed her failure to comply with other
reasonable standards set by the employer.
Her conduct does not fall within the statutory exemptions, including “conduct
an average reasonable employee would have engaged in under the circumstances.” See
The SURJ’s determination that appellant committed misconduct is supported by the evidence.