Jennifer L. Stubbs, Relator v. Sprint/United Management Co. (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development ( 2017 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1065
Jennifer L. Stubbs,
Relator,
vs.
Sprint/United Management Co. (Corp.),
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed February 21, 2017
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 34505758-3
Jennifer L. Stubbs, Savage, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Sprint/United Management Co., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent employer)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Department)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REYES, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she is
ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Jennifer L. Stubbs worked as an assistant store manager for respondent
Sprint/United Management Co. While working as an assistant manager, relator
purchased a product from respondent, priced at $85.69, using her 25% employee discount
for $59.99 (plus tax). On January 15, 2016, relator returned the product and credited her
mother’s account with respondent for the full $85.69. Relator maintains that her manager
approved the decision to credit the account for the product’s full price, even though
relator purchased the product with her employee discount, to avoid respondent
questioning why a non-employee received a discount. Relator acknowledged that the
product was refunded for more than the purchase price. In a separate incident, relator’s
manager provided her with a cellphone and authorized her to recycle it through
respondent’s buyback program and to credit the cellphone’s value to her mother’s
account. Relator recycled the cellphone and credited her mother’s account for $200.
It is a violation of respondent’s policies for an employee to credit their own
account or the account of their family or friends. In addition, respondent’s policies do
not allow an employee to purchase an item using their employee discount and later return
the same item for the product’s full price. Because respondent’s policies did not allow
2
relator to access her mother’s account, she had another employee use his credentials to
access relator’s mother’s account so that relator could complete the recycling
transaction.1 Relator’s activities were discovered, and she was discharged for violating
respondent’s policies.
Relator filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department
of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DEED determined that relator
was discharged for employment misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Relator appealed this determination to a ULJ. Following an evidentiary hearing, the ULJ
issued her findings of fact and decision, determining that relator was discharged for
employment misconduct and therefore is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.
Specifically, the ULJ found that “[t]he evidence supports that [relator] did know the
policies and that she was breaking them,” and that “[relator] gave an ineligible account a
free $200 and a full [product] return and that [such conduct] equaled stealing from the
company.” Relator filed a request for reconsideration. The ULJ issued an order
affirming her prior decision. Relator’s certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
I. The ULJ properly decided that relator is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct.
Relator argues that the ULJ’s determination that she is ineligible for
unemployment benefits was arbitrary or capricious and erroneous because she merely
1
The record does not indicate how relator accessed her mother’s account in the first
transaction involving the $85.69 credit.
3
engaged in “a good faith error in judgment.” We disagree.
This court reviews a ULJ’s denial of unemployment benefits to determine whether
the findings, inferences, conclusions of law, or decision are affected by an error of law,
are unsupported by substantial evidence, or are arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2016). Whether an employee committed a particular act is a
question of fact. Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel, 562 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn. App.
1997). This court views the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the
decision, giving deference to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s
Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Whether an employee’s act constitutes
employment misconduct is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
Scheunemann, 562 N.W.2d at 34. “Employment misconduct” is defined as intentional,
negligent, or indifferent conduct that displays clearly “a serious violation of the standards
of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee” or “a
substantial lack of concern for the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a)
(2016).
The ULJ found that relator was terminated for employment misconduct after
impermissibly crediting her mother’s account in two separate transactions: (1) the $85.69
credit, when she returned a product that she had purchased with her employee discount,
and (2) the $200 credit, when she recycled a cellphone that the store manager had given
her. The ULJ further found that relator knew her conduct was in violation of
respondent’s policies, that her actions showed an attempt to cover up her violation of
respondent’s policies, and that her conduct amounted to stealing from respondent.
4
The facts of this case are analogous to those presented in Skarhus, where an
employee was terminated after undercharging herself for a food order in violation of
company policy. 721 N.W.2d at 342. There, although the value of the undercharge was
less than four dollars, this court affirmed the ULJ’s decision that such conduct amounted
to employment misconduct, reasoning that the employee had “engaged in intentional
conduct on the job that seriously violates the standards of behavior the employer has the
right to expect of the employee.” Id. at 344.
Here, the ULJ’s findings regarding relator’s conduct and violations of
respondent’s policies are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are neither
arbitrary or capricious nor erroneous. Relator acknowledged that she credited her
mother’s account in the two transactions, and further testimony presented at the
evidentiary hearing established that these transactions were plain violations of
respondent’s policies. We agree with the ULJ’s determination that relator’s conduct
amounted to “a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right
to reasonably expect of the employee.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a)(1).
II. The ULJ properly conducted the evidentiary hearing.
Relator also argues that the ULJ did not fairly and adequately assist her as an
unrepresented individual. Relator maintains that the ULJ failed to develop the record and
to help her subpoena documents and examine respondent’s witness. The ULJ is required
to “assist all parties in the presentation of evidence” and “ensure that all relevant facts are
clearly and fully developed.” Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2015).
5
Here, the record provides no indication that the ULJ failed to assist relator. At the
beginning of the evidentiary hearing, the ULJ informed both parties that they “have the
right to request that the hearing be rescheduled so that documents or witnesses can be
presented by subpoena if necessary.” Despite being informed of this right, relator did not
request that any documents or persons be subpoenaed. In addition, after soliciting
sufficient testimony from both parties, the ULJ twice asked relator if she wished to
provide further testimony or questioning. Finally, the ULJ ensured that the record
relating to relator’s conduct and respondent’s policies was clear and developed.
Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the ULJ’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence and that the ULJ properly conducted the evidentiary hearing. We
therefore affirm the ULJ’s decision that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits
because she was discharged for employment misconduct.
Affirmed.
6