Michael B. Scott, Relator v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development,...

• Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: a231375
• Status: Published

Opinion

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A23-1375

Michael B. Scott, Relator,

vs.

Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc., Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Filed June 10, 2024 Affirmed Ross, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 49498019-3

Michael B. Scott, Minneapolis, Minnesota (self-represented relator)

Keri Phillips, Katrina Gulstad, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc. c/o TALX UCM Services, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri (respondent employer)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Reyes,

Judge. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

ROSS, Judge

Pharmacy technician Michael Scott’s employer terminated his employment after

investigating customer and coworker complaints that Scott was behaving rudely and

aggressively. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development at

first determined that Scott is eligible to receive unemployment benefits. After the employer

appealed, an unemployment-law judge conducted a hearing after which the judge found

credible the employer’s allegation that it discharged Scott for engaging in rude and

aggressive behavior, based in part on the judge’s observation that Scott engaged in rude

and aggressive behavior during the hearing. Because the unemployment-law judge had

ample evidence on which to credit the employer’s allegation that it discharged Scott for

this behavior and the behavior constitutes employment misconduct, we affirm the

determination that Scott is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.

FACTS

Michael Scott worked as a pharmacy technician at Jerry’s Enterprises Inc. (Cub

Foods) from November 2022 until March 2023. In March 2023 Scott’s supervisors met

with him attempting to discuss customer complaints that he had yelled at a nurse and

impolitely interacted with a child. According to Scott’s manager, Scott dominated the

meeting, argued with his supervisors, and became increasingly agitated. He pointed at

them, hit his own head, and yelled at them. He shouted that he was being bullied when he

learned they were issuing him a verbal warning.

2 After that meeting, Scott continued to complain to a manager about the warning. A

coworker intervened, telling Scott that he was behaving disrespectfully. Scott responded

by yelling at the coworker while pointing his finger in her face. The coworker, fearing

Scott, immediately left the area and locked herself in a small room. The manager called for

security personnel to direct Scott to leave the store. The store director communicated with

Scott the next day in a telephone discussion during which Scott yelled and denied any

wrongdoing. Cub Foods terminated Scott’s employment based on his aggressive,

threatening, insubordinate, and unprofessional behavior.

Scott applied to receive unemployment benefits. The department of employment

and economic development originally deemed him eligible for benefits, but Cub Foods

appealed that decision to an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), who conducted an

evidentiary hearing on Scott’s eligibility. Throughout the hearing, Scott repeatedly

interrupted the ULJ and other witnesses. The ULJ attempted to redirect Scott to answer

questions, but Scott’s answers were lengthy and unresponsive to the questions asked. The

ULJ found that Cub Foods discharged Scott because of employment misconduct and

determined that he is therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. The ULJ

confirmed that decision after Scott requested reconsideration.

Scott challenges that decision in this certiorari appeal.

DECISION

Scott argues that the ULJ wrongly determined that he is ineligible to receive

unemployment benefits. An applicant is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits for

unemployment that resulted from the applicant’s discharge for employment misconduct.

3 Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4(1), 6(a) (2022). We will affirm a ULJ’s factual findings if

the record contains evidence that reasonably supports them. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.,

796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). And we review de novo the issue of whether the

supported findings constitute employment misconduct. Id. Here the ULJ found the facts

described above based on the consistent testimony of multiple witnesses who saw Scott’s

behavior during the workplace discussions we have summarized. And the ULJ found that

Scott’s combative behavior during the hearing corroborated the testimony:

The employer’s testimony about Scott’s behavior at work; that he was yelling, aggressive, threatening, and unprofessional, was supported by Scott’s behavior in the hearing. During the hearing, Scott was argumentative [and] controlling, and [he] constantly interrupted the judge. Scott’s answers were often nonresponsive, and when the judge attempted to redirect Scott, Scott merely got louder in order to control the conversation. Scott refused to take direction from the judge, raised his voice countless times to speak over the judge, and was extremely disruptive.

Because we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations, Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721

N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006), we reject Scott’s contention that the ULJ’s findings

were erroneous.

We have no difficulty affirming the ULJ’s legal conclusion that Scott’s conduct

constitutes employment misconduct, which is “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent

conduct, on the job or off the job, that is 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). An employer would reasonably expect its employees to communicate with

managers, coworkers, and customers civilly and courteously, not angrily, threateningly,

4 and explosively. Scott’s behavior breached that standard. Scott also argues that the ULJ

did not appropriately address his union representation, but the argument raises issues that

have no bearing on the ULJ’s relevant factual findings and consequent legal conclusion.

Affirmed.