Deborah A. Lindamood, Relator v. Volunteer Services of Carlton County, Inc., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A15-0588
Deborah A. Lindamood,
Relator,
vs.
Volunteer Services of Carlton County, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed December 28, 2015
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32983511-3
Deborah A. Lindamood, Brookston, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Michele L. Miller, Johnson, Killen & Seiler P.A., Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent
Volunteer Services of Carlton County, Inc.)
Lee B. Nelson, Timothy C. Schepers, Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment
and Economic Development)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge
Relator challenges the determination by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that
she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
From April 1, 2002, through October 9, 2014, relator Deborah A. Lindamood was
employed as a program director by respondent Volunteer Services of Carlton County,
Inc. (VSCCI). VSCCI is a nonprofit organization that uses dedicated volunteers to secure
and distribute food, clothing, and assistance to people in need in Carlton, Aitkin, and
southern St. Louis counties. VSCCI also pays a number of non-volunteer certified
nursing assistants (CNAs). VSCCI receives a number of governmental grants and must
submit quarterly reports to account for the use of grant monies. Reported volunteer hours
are treated as “in-kind” dollars to be matched by grants. Because of this, misreporting
hours could have significant repercussions on VSCCI’s operations by potentially causing
the organization to lose its funding.
Lindamood’s duties included maintaining records and gathering information for
the reports to grantors. This work involved reviewing and signing volunteer timesheets
and tallying the volunteer hours to be included in the quarterly grant reports. Questions
about timesheet accuracy first arose in late 2013, when Lindamood was on medical leave.
Jill Hatfield, VSCCI’s chief executive officer, temporarily took over some of
Lindamood’s duties and discovered that the hours worked by CNAs were being counted
2
as volunteer hours. Hatfield confronted Lindamood when she returned from medical
leave in December 2013, and Lindamood assured her that any mistakes were inadvertent
and that she had stopped including the CNAs’ hours in the reports in November 2013.
In August 2014, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office (the AGO) contacted
VSCCI and requested records pertaining to the organization’s operations. Three VSCCI
employees who were preparing material in response to the AGO’s request contacted
Hatfield and reported that they had found numerous mistakes on timesheets approved by
Lindamood. Hatfield testified that she decided to investigate further and compared the
next quarterly reports against Lindamood’s timesheets. Again, they reflected incorrect
volunteer-hour reporting. Despite Lindamood’s assertion that mistakes were simple
clerical errors, Hatfield concluded that the incorrect reporting could not be dismissed as
such because of their previous conversations.
Hatfield terminated Lindamood’s employment on October 9, 2014, for grant-
reporting fraud. According to Hatfield, after she explained the reason for the termination,
Lindamood advised her that she could not be fired because she had been the
whistleblower to the AGO. Hatfield nevertheless terminated her employment, claiming
that she did not know until then that Lindamood was the person responsible for the
AGO’s investigation.
Lindamood applied for unemployment benefits and was determined to be eligible.
VSCCI appealed, and the ULJ held a hearing at which Lindamood and Hatfield testified.
The ULJ concluded that Lindamood was discharged for employee misconduct and is
ineligible for benefits. Lindamood filed a request for reconsideration, and the ULJ
3
affirmed the decision, noting that Lindamood repeated arguments that she previously
asserted and presented irrelevant evidence. Lindamood appeals by writ of certiorari.
DECISION
Lindamood argues that, although she made mistakes, those mistakes did not
amount to misconduct. She further asserts that the ULJ failed to take into account her
alleged status as a whistleblower when determining that she was properly discharged for
misconduct.
We review a ULJ’s decision to determine whether a party’s substantial rights were
prejudiced because the decision is “(1) in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in
excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the department; (3) made upon
unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) unsupported by substantial
evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (6) arbitrary or capricious.” Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2015). An employee who is discharged for
employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095,
subd. 4(1) (2014).
“Employment misconduct means 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(a) (2014). Whether an
employee committed employment misconduct presents a mixed question of law and fact.
Peterson v. Nw. Airlines Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied
(Minn. Oct. 1, 2008). Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of
4
fact, which this court reviews “in the light most favorable to the [ULJ’s] decision.” Id.Whether that act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which this
court reviews de novo. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
We note at the outset that there is no dispute that volunteer hours were improperly
recorded. Because VSCCI’s funding depended on accurate reporting, it was crucial that
only the hours of volunteers be counted in the quarterly reports. The ULJ found that
Hatfield counseled Lindamood on December 13, 2013, when Hatfield first discovered
that the hours worked by CNAs were included in the volunteer hours in Lindamood’s
reports. But even after Lindamood was warned against improperly including these non-
volunteer hours in the reports, Hatfield testified that it occurred again. Hatfield stated
that she tallied at least 39 timesheets that incorrectly included CNAs’ hours in the reports.
Lindamood contends that she “may have, in good faith, committed mistakes,” but that
“mistakes are not misconduct.” She adds that “[s]he never displayed the type of
intentional negligent or indifferent conduct which would display a clearly serious
violation of the standards of behavior an employer had the right to reasonably expect.”
But the ULJ concluded that “[m]isreporting hours could have serious negative impacts on
those grants, especially in light of the Attorney General’s investigation into [VSCCI]”
and noted that “Lindamood’s reporting of volunteer hours to Hatfield as volunteer hours
was a serious violation of the employer’s reasonable standards.”
Lindamood argues that she was discharged in retaliation after Hatfield discovered
that she was a whistleblower to the AGO. In order to determine whether Lindamood was
discharged because she was the whistleblower, the ULJ had to make a credibility
5
determination. This court defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations when (1) the
ULJ sets forth a valid reason for crediting or discrediting testimony that may significantly
affect the ultimate decision and (2) substantial evidence supports the determinations.
Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 529, 532 (Minn. App. 2007);
see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a) (2014) (providing that the ULJ “must set out
the reason for crediting or discrediting that testimony” when the witness’s credibility “has
a significant effect on the outcome of the decision”).
The ULJ determined that Lindamood’s assertion that she was discharged for being
a whistleblower was not supported by the record. Hatfield testified that while she knew
that someone had contacted the AGO, she assumed it was a disgruntled former member
of the board of directors and that she did not learn that it was Lindamood until after she
had terminated her employment. The ULJ found credible Hatfield’s testimony that she
was not aware of Lindamood’s role in the matter prior to the discharge conversation,
stating that “[b]ecause of the detail Hatfield offered regarding her initial suspicions,
Hatfield’s testimony that she did not know Deborah Lindamood contacted the Attorney
General is credible.” The ULJ found no facts to support Lindamood’s claim and instead
found it “more likely, as the employer asserts, that Deborah Lindamood was discharged
for allowing multiple employees to report hours worked as volunteer hours, despite
having been warned against the same in December 2013.”
6
The ULJ’s finding that Lindamood incorrectly counted CNAs’ hours as volunteer
hours on multiple timesheets is supported by the evidence, and the ULJ’s determination
that the conduct constitutes misconduct is not error.
Affirmed.
7