This opinion will be unpublished and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
Lois C. Terry,
Twin City Linnea Home,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed October 11, 2005
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Agency File No. 14594 04
Lois C. Terry,
Corey J. Ayling, McGrann Shea Anderson Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartered, U.S. Bancorp Center, 800 Nicollet Mall, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402-7035 (for respondent Twin City Linnea Home)
Linda A. Holmes, Department
of Employment and Economic Development,
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Randall, Judge; and Willis, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Relator Lois C. Terry challenges the decision by the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. Because we conclude that the evidence reasonably supports the findings, and that those findings support the determination that relator was discharged for misconduct, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits
is a mixed question of fact and law.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d
801, 804 (
Employment misconduct is defined as “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)(1) (Supp. 2003).
The SURJ found that relator was discharged in July 2004 for engaging in an oral and physical altercation in the workplace after a September 2003 warning for being loud and abrasive in the workplace and March 2004 counseling for disrespectful behavior in the workplace. The SURJ determined that this evinced an intentional disregard of the standards of behavior that the employer had the right to reasonably expect of an employee and substantial lack of concern for her employment.
Relator first argues that the SURJ’s findings were based on falsified documents and that, contrary to the findings, she had not been counseled prior to the incident that led to her discharge. The finding that relator had been given a September 2003 warning was supported by a report describing complaints about relator’s behavior as well as corrective action relator was to take. The finding that relator had been counseled in March 2004 about another incident was supported by testimony by relator’s supervisor as well as a description in a progress report. The findings are supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, and this court has no basis for reversing them.
Relator next argues that the
decision by the unemployment-law judge (ULJ), who determined that relator had
not committed misconduct, should be credited.
This court, however, reviews the decision of the SURJ rather than the
v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (
The SURJ’s order determining that relator was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct is affirmed.
 Legislative amendments to the unemployment
benefits statute codified in 2004 substituted the term “senior unemployment
review judge” for the commissioner’s representative. 2004