This opinion will be unpublished and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
Denise H. Norby,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed August 29, 2006
Department of Employment and Economic Development
Agency File No. 1133705
Denise H. Norby,
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic
Considered and decided by Dietzen, Presiding Judge; Willis, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was discharged for employment misconduct and is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s finding that relator engaged in employment misconduct, we affirm.
Relator Denise H.
Norby was employed full time by the City of
Relator applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Department of Employment and Economic Security (DEED), and DEED determined that she was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator’s employer appealed DEED’s determination, and a hearing was held before a ULJ.
At the hearing, the employer presented five witnesses, including council member Cinthia Bailey, mayor Michael DeCoursey, clerk deputy Lori Robinson, clerk treasurer LuAnn Sawatzky, and the mayor’s wife Elizabeth DeCoursey, all of whom either directly supervised or worked closely with relator. The witnesses testified that relator mishandled funds by failing to keep daily balances of liquor store funds, by submitting erroneous monthly reports, by co-mingling lottery money and ATM money, and by maintaining excessive amounts of money in the cash registers. Her supervisors testified that relator was sent home on one occasion when they discovered during a liquor store visit that relator had left $700 of lottery money unsecured on top of the safe, the ATM contained funds in excess of $520, and the cash registers exceeded the maximum amount by $1,360. Witnesses also testified that for many months relator ignored supervisors’ requests that she implement “touchscreens” on store computers, institute computerized credit-card tips and timecards, and visit beer displays at other stores in anticipation of changes to be made at the liquor store.
The employer also entered into evidence two written warnings that relator had received during her employment. The first warning indicated “substandard work in regards to the monthly reports, budget reports, and year-to-date reports” and relegated relator’s reporting duties to the city clerk. A second warning cited relator’s lack of knowledge of “total funds kept on hand,” failure to obtain a personnel policy handbook, and refusal to initiate managerial duties.
Relator testified that she generally complied with employer directions and that she properly deposited funds and maintained cash registers. Appellant admitted that she had improperly co-mingled lottery money with ATM money on two occasions and that she had failed to visit beer displays as requested “[b]ecause I didn’t think it was that important.”
The ULJ found that relator had mishandled employer funds and engaged in insubordination that displayed “a serious disregard of the City’s interest and of standards of behavior they had a right to expect of [relator] as an employee[.]” The ULJ concluded that relator was discharged because of employment misconduct and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Relator requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision. This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
the ULJ’s decision, arguing that the finding that she engaged in employment
misconduct is unsupported by the evidence.
On review of the ULJ’s decision, we may affirm, remand for further
proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision.
Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005). Reversal or modification is appropriate when
relator’s substantial rights were prejudiced because the findings, inferences,
conclusion, or decision are affected by error of law or unsupported by
person who is discharged from employment because of employment misconduct is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
witnesses who supervised or worked closely with relator testified that she repeatedly
ignored employer requests and mishandled funds.
And relator admitted that she improperly co-mingled ATM and lottery
funds and declined to visit beer displays as directed by her employer. While relator argues that she offered
testimony contradicting the version of events offered by other witnesses, this
court defers to the credibility determinations made by the fact-finder. Jenson
v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 617 N.W.2d 627, 631 (
the particular acts committed by relator constitute disqualifying employment
misconduct as a matter of law. This
court has held that a “pattern of failing to follow policies and procedures and
ignoring directions and requests” is misconduct. Gilkeson
v. Indus. Parts & Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452 (