New Freedom Center v. Job Service , 2020 ND 99 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                Filed 05/07/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2020 ND 99
    New Freedom Center, Inc.,                          Petitioner and Appellant
    v.
    Job Service North Dakota,                          Respondent and Appellee
    and
    James L. Maurer,                                                Respondent
    No. 20190405
    Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
    District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Monte L. Rogneby, Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellant.
    Michael T. Pitcher, Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for respondent
    and appellee.
    New Freedom Center v. Job Service
    No. 20190405
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] New Freedom Center, Inc. (“NFC”) appealed from a district court
    judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota’s (“Job Service”) allowance of
    unemployment benefits to NFC’s former employee, James Maurer. NFC
    asserts Job Service erred when it found Maurer was not terminated for benefit-
    disqualifying misconduct. We conclude Job Service’s decision is supported by
    a preponderance of the evidence. See Baier v. Job Service N.D., 
    2004 ND 27
    , ¶
    7, 
    673 N.W.2d 923
     (applying preponderance of the evidence standard to
    misconduct determinations).
    [¶2] NFC also argues Job Service erred when it refused to consider
    pornography that was allegedly discovered on Maurer’s work computer and
    when the appeals referee had an ex parte communication with Maurer. We
    conclude NFC waived these issues when its representative declined to testify
    about the pornography at the administrative hearing and when its
    representative did not object to the ex parte communication. See McNamara
    v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 
    500 N.W.2d 585
    , 593 (N.D. 1993) (holding failure
    to assert objection at administrative hearing precludes litigant from raising
    issue on appeal).
    [¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7).
    [¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
    Gerald W. VandeWalle
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Daniel J. Crothers
    Jerod E. Tufte
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20190405

Citation Numbers: 2020 ND 99

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/7/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/7/2020