Patricia Medal, Relator v. Agassiz Federal Credit Union, Department of Employment and Economic Development ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1381
Patricia Medal,
Relator,
vs.
Agassiz Federal Credit Union,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed March 9, 2015
Affirmed
Hudson, Judge
Department of Employment and
Economic Development
File No. 32351030-3
Patricia Medal, Crookston, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Agassiz Federal Credit Union, Crookston, Minnesota (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent DEED)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HUDSON, Judge
By certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law
judge that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for
unemployment misconduct. She argues that the employer failed to provide evidence that
she frequently made mistakes or failed to perform her duties; that her conduct was at
most unsatisfactory or the result of good-faith errors in judgment; and that she was
discharged only after the board of directors was advised of the employer’s unethical
conduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Patricia Medal was employed as a teller by respondent Agassiz Federal
Credit Union from 2008 until March 2014, when she was discharged. Agassiz appealed
DEED’s initial determination that Medal was eligible for unemployment benefits,
arguing that she should be denied benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct.
At a hearing before an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), Agassiz’s CEO testified
that Medal was discharged because errors had occurred on the teller line for which Medal
had responsibility, and other employees had complained that Medal was not cooperating
in working with the tellers and identifying errors. The CEO indicated that, although
Medal was supposed to be reviewing transactions, sometimes errors of over $100 went
unreported for more than a day. She testified that the errors, which included referencing
the wrong amount or the wrong account, became more frequent when Medal took the
2
head-teller position in 2013, when they occurred almost daily, and that the errors made it
more difficult for the bookkeeper to perform her job and cost Agassiz time and money.
She testified that Medal also did not place the phone in night mode or personally deliver
messages to other employees, as she had been directed. She testified that Medal was
discharged because of her failure to cooperate with other employees, the number of errors
that occurred under her supervision, and the poor quality of her work. The company
bookkeeper also testified that she experienced stress because she had to check for errors
herself when Medal was not finding them, and that in one instance, as a result of Medal’s
error, a customer did not receive interest on a certificate of deposit.
Medal testified that, when she became head teller, she initially made errors, but as
she learned the job they became fewer, and she attempted to work more slowly and focus
more on her work. She disagreed that she made errors on a daily basis, indicated that she
did not make them on purpose, that she always tried to correct them, and that she was
only spoken to about errors approximately once per week. She testified that when she
had time, she would personally deliver phone messages, but that placing the phone on
night mode was hard to remember and “got to be a mental block with all of [the tellers].”
She stated that she believed that she had been discharged because when she was on
medical leave, she supported other tellers who had accused the CEO of a policy violation
of abusing her authority, a claim on which the board took no action. The CEO testified
on redirect that the policy-violation allegations did not affect her decision to discharge
Medal.
3
The ULJ issued a decision denying benefits, concluding that Medal had been
discharged for employment misconduct. Medal requested reconsideration, and the ULJ
modified some findings and affirmed her decision. The ULJ determined that the
employer’s testimony was more credible than Medal’s testimony and that Medal’s work
performance and failure to follow directives amounted to a serious violation of standards
the employer had the right to reasonably expect. This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
When reviewing an unemployment insurance benefits decision, this court may
affirm, remand the case for further proceedings, or reverse and modify the decision if the
substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced because the decision is unsupported
by substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole or affected by an error of law.
Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014). Whether an employee engaged in conduct that
disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits presents a mixed question of fact
and law. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). “Whether the
employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.,
721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). We review the ULJ’s factual findings “in the
light most favorable to the decision” and defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations.
Id. Whether a particular act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law,
which we review de novo. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn.
2002).
An employee who is discharged because of employment misconduct is ineligible
to receive unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2014).
4
Employment misconduct is defined as “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct,
on the job or off the job that displays clearly: (1) a serious violation of the standards of
behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee; or (2) a
substantial lack of concern for the employment.” Id., subd. 6 (2014). But “conduct an
average reasonable employee would have engaged in under the circumstances” and
“good faith errors in judgment if judgment was required” do not amount to employment
misconduct. Id., subd. 6(b)(4), (6) (2014).
Medal argues that the ULJ erred by concluding that she was discharged for
employment misconduct. She disputes the frequency of her errors, alleging that routine
business practice includes reviewing transactions and correcting errors, and that any
errors she made amounted to simple unsatisfactory conduct, rather than employment
misconduct. But refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests
generally constitutes employment misconduct. Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804. And
“[t]he employer has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees
handling the employer’s money.” McDonald v. PDQ, 341 N.W.2d 892, 893 (Minn. App.
1984). The ULJ found that Medal made the same ledger mistakes on a regular basis and
that her failure to pay close attention to her work resulted in the bookkeeper having to
spend significant time to reconcile the ledger, as required by the auditors. These findings
are supported by substantial evidence and support the ULJ’s determination that Medal’s
work performance and failure to follow directives amounted to employment misconduct.
The ULJ found that the testimony of the employer’s representatives was more
credible than Medal’s testimony because it was more detailed, consistent, and plausible.
5
Medal argues that this court should not uphold the ULJ’s credibility determination
because the ULJ was presented only with general assertions, not specific instances of
misconduct. We recognize Medal’s argument, but we nevertheless conclude that the
evidence regarding the extent and frequency of Medal’s errors showed a consistent
pattern of failing to follow the directions of her employer by not correcting ledger errors.
See Gilkeson v. Indus. Parts & Serv., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1986)
(holding that a “pattern of failing to follow policies and procedures and ignoring
directions and requests” of an employer constituted employment misconduct). We
acknowledge that the employer’s case would have been stronger had it identified specific
instances of misconduct. Nevertheless, the record supports the ULJ’s credibility
determination by showing a pattern of conduct that demonstrated a substantial lack of
concern for Medal’s employment. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (stating standard
for employment misconduct).
Medal also argues that she was not given any formal warnings about her job
performance. But an employer is not always required to give an employee a warning
before discharging the employee for employment misconduct. See Auger v. Gillette Co.,
303 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn. 1981) (stating that a warning was not essential to
demonstrate that employees acted in willful disregard of employer’s interest). She also
argues that the employer did not sustain harm because of her actions. But the bookkeeper
testified that one customer was denied interest on a CD as a result of Medal’s error.
Further, “[h]arm is not necessary for a determination of misconduct.” Sivertson v. Sims
Sec., Inc., 390 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20,
6
1986). Therefore, Medal’s claim that the employer did not suffer harm from her actions
is not dispositive of whether her actions amounted to employment misconduct.
Medal maintains that her conduct in forgetting to switch the phones to night mode
and failing to deliver messages to other employees is insufficient to sustain a
determination of employment misconduct. The ULJ, however, did not rest her decision
only on that conduct, but properly considered it in conjunction with Medal’s additional
work-related performance. See Drellack v. Inter–Cnty. Cmty. Council, Inc., 366 N.W.2d
671, 674 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that “[an employee’s behavior] may be considered
as a whole in determining the propriety of her discharge and her qualification for
unemployment compensation benefits”).
Medal finally argues that her discharge was in retaliation for her actions
supporting a complaint of a policy violation by the CEO. But the ULJ explored this
claim at the hearing and found that the record contained insufficient evidence to support
it because Medal was not responsible for the complaint and was on medical leave when it
was filed. The ULJ’s finding on this issue is supported by substantial evidence. In sum,
the ULJ did not err by concluding that Medal was discharged because of employment
misconduct and denying unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.
7