Deborah A. Weckert, Relator v. United Healthcare Services, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A14-1247
Deborah A. Weckert,
Relator,
vs.
United Healthcare Services, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed February 2, 2015
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32291094-3
Deborah A. Weckert, Cloquet, Minnesota (pro se relator)
United Healthcare Services, c/o TALX UCM Services, St. Louis, Missouri (respondent)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development)
Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that she is ineligible for
unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. We
affirm.
FACTS
Relator Deborah Weckert worked as a billing analyst for respondent United
Healthcare Services Inc. from March 2003 until February 18, 2014. For the last five
years, Weckert telecommuted, working from her home on an hourly basis with a set
schedule of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
United Healthcare’s policy provided that:
UnitedHealth Group pays its employees for all time
worked. Further, the company pays non-exempt employees
overtime pay according to guidelines set forth by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and in accordance with certain
state laws. . . .
....
It is the policy of UnitedHealth Group to pay
employees for all time worked. Toward that end, you MUST
accurately record all the time that you work. Record all time
worked, including overtime hours, as actual hours
worked[.] . . .
....
Before working overtime, you must get approval from
your manager. Failure to obtain pre-approval for overtime
will not void y[our] entitlement to be paid for the time you
worked, but it may subject you to disciplinary action, up to
and including termination of employment.
2
(Emphasis added.) Weckert received a copy of the policy when she began her
employment with United Healthcare and knew that she was subject to the policy
throughout her employment. Specifically, Weckert knew that she was permitted to work
only from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., that she needed managerial preapproval to work
overtime, and that she was required to accurately report her time worked.
In January 2014, Weckert’s supervisor pulled a report from which she discovered
numerous days on which Weckert had worked “over her 4:30 stop time.” Weckert
subsequently admitted to her supervisor that she had been working past her stop time but
was unsure how long she had been doing so. Weckert’s supervisor instructed her to
research and determine when she began working past her stop time. Weckert pulled
multiple reports, which revealed she had been working past her stop time, i.e., working
overtime, during 2011, 2012, and 2013, “almost on a daily, daily occurrence.” United
Healthcare is obligated to pay Weckert for two years of the overtime at an estimated cost
of $6,000 to $10,000. United Healthcare discharged Weckert because of her
noncompliance with company policy.
Weckert applied for unemployment-insurance benefits, and the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that she
was eligible to receive benefits. United Healthcare appealed DEED’s determination, and
an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) conducted a hearing at which Weckert and her
supervisor testified. The ULJ decided that Weckert is ineligible to receive unemployment
benefits because United Healthcare discharged her for employment misconduct. Weckert
requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision.
3
This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
The purpose of chapter 268, Minnesota’s unemployment-insurance program, is to
assist those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Minn. Stat. § 268.03,
subd. 1 (2014);1 see Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011)
(referring to “policy that unemployment compensation is paid only to those persons
unemployed through no fault of their own” (quotations omitted)). “[E]ntitlement to
unemployment benefits must be determined based upon that information available
without regard to a burden of proof.” Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 2 (2014). “There is no
equitable or common law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.069, subd. 3 (2014).
When reviewing a ULJ’s unemployment-benefits decision, an appellate court may
affirm the decision of the ULJ or remand the case for further proceedings, or the court
may reverse or modify the decision if the relator’s substantial rights may have been
prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision is made upon
unlawful procedure, affected by other error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence
in view of the entire record as submitted, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014). An appellate court reviews the ULJ’s factual findings in the
light most favorable to the decision and “will not disturb them when they are sustained by
1
We apply the most recent version of statutes in this opinion because the applicable
statutes have not been amended in relevant part. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty.
Bd. of Comm’rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, “appellate
courts apply the law as it exists at the time they rule on a case”).
4
substantial evidence.” Peterson v. Ne. Bank—Minneapolis, 805 N.W.2d 878, 880 (Minn.
App. 2011). An appellate court “give[s] deference to the credibility determinations made
by the ULJ” but “review[s] the ULJ’s ineligibility determination de novo, construing
narrowly statutory bases to disqualify applicants.” Neumann v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ.
Dev., 844 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).
In this case, we must decide whether the ULJ appropriately determined that
Weckert was discharged for employment misconduct. Generally, “an employee who is
fired because of employment misconduct is not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
Potter v. N. Empire Pizza, Inc., 805 N.W.2d 872, 874 (Minn. App. 2011) (citing Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2010)), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011). “Employment
misconduct means any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on 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.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2014). “Whether an employee engaged
in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed
question of fact and law.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation omitted). “[W]hether a
particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct is a question of law . . . .” Id.
“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Peterson v. Nw.
Airlines Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1,
2008).
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and
requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644
5
N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). “An employer has a right to expect that its employees
will abide by reasonable instructions and directions.” Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673
N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). “[W]hat is
reasonable will vary according to the circumstances of each case.” Id. (quotations
omitted). Failure to abide by an employer’s timecard policy and falsely reporting time
worked may constitute employment misconduct. See Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc., 378
N.W.2d 660, 662−63 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming ineligibility determination based on
finding “that [employee] falsified his time card and knowingly violated [employer]’s time
card policy”).
Challenging the ULJ’s decision that she was discharged for misconduct, Weckert
argues that United Healthcare gave her no preliminary warnings prior to termination, that
her “misconduct was not intended to cause harm to anyone but to offer a faster service for
customer issues to which both [United Healthcare] and the customer would benefit,” and
that her overtime hours were inflated because they were not adjusted to reflect time spent
at classes that she taught and attended three days per week.
Lack of preliminary warnings
Weckert argues that United Healthcare did not give her “the courtesy of following
the company’s three-step disciplinary process.” But the record contains no evidence of a
three-step disciplinary process. Regardless, “the focus of the inquiry is the employee’s
conduct, not that of the employer.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 316. Even assuming that United
Healthcare had a three-step disciplinary process, “an employee’s expectation that the
employer will follow its disciplinary procedures has no bearing on whether the
6
employee’s conduct violated the standards the employer has a reasonable right to expect
or whether any such violation is serious.” Id.
Weckert’s misconduct not intended to cause harm
We construe Weckert’s argument to be that her actions constituted a good-faith
error, rather than employment misconduct. A “good faith error[] in judgment if judgment
was required” is not employment misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(b) (2014).
But by its terms, the statutory exception for good-faith errors applies only “if judgment
was required.” Id., subd. 6(b)(6); see also Potter, 805 N.W.2d at 877 (concluding that
good-faith errors exception did not apply because “Potter’s duty was simply to follow the
[employer’s] policy without having any discretion to choose otherwise”). Here, United
Healthcare’s policy required Weckert to accurately report her time worked and to obtain
managerial preapproval for overtime. As in Potter, Weckert’s duty was simply to follow
United Healthcare’s policy. Weckert’s conduct does not fit into the statutory exception
for good-faith errors.
Inflated report of overtime hours
In her request for reconsideration, Weckert argued that her overtime hours were
inflated because they were not adjusted to reflect time spent at classes that she attended
three nights per week. The ULJ concluded that the additional information does not
change the outcome of the decision. We agree. United Healthcare had reasonable
expectations that Weckert would accurately report her time worked and would obtain
managerial preapproval for overtime. Regardless of whether Weckert violated United
7
Healthcare’s reasonable expectations for hours or minutes on any given day, she
repeatedly violated the reasonable expectations for three years.
We conclude that the ULJ properly determined that United Healthcare had
reasonable expectations that Weckert would accurately report her time worked and would
refrain from working overtime without obtaining managerial preapproval. Substantial
evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s finding that Weckert violated United
Healthcare’s reasonable expectations and the ULJ’s conclusion that Weckert’s actions
were a serious violation of the standards of behavior that United Healthcare had the right
to reasonably expect. The ULJ therefore correctly concluded that United Healthcare
discharged Weckert for employment misconduct and that she is not entitled to
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.
8