This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. §480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C7-97-666

John H. Roberson,

Relator,

vs.

Minnesota Correctional Facility - Lino Lakes,

Respondent,

Commissioner of Economic Security,

Respondent.

Filed December 9, 1997

Affirmed

Norton, Judge

Department of Economic Security

Agency No. 10841 UC 96

John H. Roberson, 930 - 131st Avenue, Blaine, MN 55434 (Relator-Pro Se)

Minnesota Correctional Facility - Lino Lakes, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 7525 - 4th Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (Respondent-Employer)

Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent-Commissioner)

Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge, and Schumacher, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

NORTON, Judge

Relator John H. Roberson, a corrections officer, was terminated by his employer, respondent Minnesota Correctional Facility - Lino Lakes. He filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits. The commissioner's representative denied his claim because Roberson committed misconduct. Roberson's breach of employee regulations constitutes misconduct. We affirm.

FACTS

One night while Roberson was at work, he received a telephone call from a woman who claimed to be a friend of someone incarcerated at Lino Lakes. Roberson checked his computer and did not find the person's name. He did not check to see if the person had previously been an inmate nor did he check to see if the person was incarcerated in another state facility. Roberson then arranged to meet the woman socially. Two days later they met during Roberson's work hours after he had called in sick. Roberson was terminated for misusing sick leave and for engaging the woman on the telephone in a social manner when he had reason to believe that she was a friend of an inmate or a former inmate. For safety reasons, Lino Lakes prohibits employees from personal associations with family or friends of current or former inmates.

D E C I S I O N

In reviewing a decision of the commissioner's representative, our scope of review is very narrow. Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382, 383 (Minn. 1992). The ultimate determination of whether an employee committed misconduct, is a question of law upon which this court freely exercises its independent judgment. Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 523 (Minn. 1989). An individual who commits misconduct is disqualified from receiving reemployment compensation benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (1996). Misconduct includes:

conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee * * * or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.

Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (Wis. 1941)). Misconduct does not include "good faith errors in judgment or discretion." Id. at 375, 204 N.W.2d at 646.

Roberson admitted during an internal investigation that he had met the woman for lunch between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on a day he was supposed to be working until 4:00 p.m. Roberson's deliberate deception did not constitute an "error in judgment" because such an act does not call for judgment or discretion. Additionally, Roberson's failure to follow Lino Lakes' personal relationship policy, even though it coincidentally did not lead to a violative relationship, also represented a lack of due regard for Lino Lakes' policies. A correctional facility is different from a traditional employer because it must have confidence that its employees respect the rules that govern the facility. Given the unique nature of a correctional facility, Roberson's breach of employee regulations was sufficient to constitute misconduct.

Affirmed.