This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Furniture Outlets USA Inc.,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed March 7, 2006
Elizabeth A. Papacek, Leonard Street & Deinard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent Furniture Outlets)
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Relator challenges the determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct. Because we conclude that the act for which relator was discharged was misconduct, we affirm.
Relator Boni Kettula worked on commission as a salesperson for respondent Furniture Outlets USA, Inc. To deter salespersons from making computer errors, respondent had a policy of taking from a salesperson the credit for a sale in which errors were found and giving the credit for the sale to the house account.
On September 30, 2004, a sale was credited half to relator and half to another salesperson. On October 1, 2004, when computer errors were found in the sale, the store manager took the credit for the sale from relator and the other salesperson and gave it to the house account. On October 7, 2004, relator went into the computer file and took all credit for the sale from the house account, and gave it to herself. On November 5, 2004, an office manager discovered and reported that relator had taken all credit for the sale.
Another office manager confronted relator about the incident. He testified that relator said that “she was tired that [the store manager] was taking her sales all the time for mistakes that she would make and she was justified in changing [credit for the sale] back.” An assistant manager testified that relator “admitted to changing the commission on [the sale] and feeling justified because [the store manager] has housed sales under her name in the past.” Relator was terminated on November 8, 2004, because of this incident.
Relator sought unemployment benefits. A department adjudicator initially determined that relator had not been discharged for misconduct, and respondent appealed. After a telephone hearing, an unemployment law judge reversed the adjudicator’s determination. Relator appealed, and a senior unemployment review judge (SURJ), acting under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2 (2004), conducted de novo review and affirmed.
D E C I S I O N
A determination that an
employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits because of misconduct is a
mixed question of fact and law. Colburn v. Pine
defined as “any intentional . . . conduct . . . that displays clearly
a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to
reasonably expect of the employee.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004). “Dishonesty that is
connected with employment may constitute misconduct.” Baron
v. Lens Crafters, Inc., 514 N.W.2d 305, 307-08 (Minn. App. 1994) (finding
misconduct when employee exaggerated the number of store managers that he had
trained); see also Cherveny v. 10,000
Auto Parts, 353 N.W.2d 685, 688 (
 In her brief, relator argues that she should have been able to present new information to the SURJ and to this court. But such presentation of new information would be contrary to law. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d) (“A senior unemployment review judge shall not . . . consider any evidence that was not submitted at the hearing before the unemployment law judge”); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 (providing that the record on appeal consists of papers and exhibits filed with the previous decision-maker and the transcript, if any); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 115.04 (applying provisions of rule 110 to certiorari appeals).