Most know that a former employee is not entitled to unemployment benefits if terminated for “employment misconduct.” But what constitutes employment misconduct is often the subject of debate.
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently decided a case on the issue which is sure to be of interest to Minnesota employers and the attorneys who advise them. In Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., the Court rejected a common law “materiality standard” for determining what constitutes employment misconduct. See __ N.W.2d__, No. A15-0435, 2016 WL 7448309, at *3-6 (Minn. Dec. 28, 2016). It held that the definition of employment misconduct contained in Minn. Stat. § 268.095 is exclusive.
Wilson involved an employee, Nina Wilson, who represented in her job application with Mortgage Resource Center (“MRC”) that she had obtained a GED. When MRC could not verify that Wilson had a GED, it sent her a letter asking her to submit documentation. Wilson was terminated when she did not respond to the letter while on a medical leave of absence.
Wilson then applied for unemployment benefits. The Department of Employment and Economic Development concluded that Wilson was entitled to benefits because MRC discharged her because of a medical issue. MRC appealed. An unemployment law judge concluded that Wilson was discharged “in large part” because of misrepresentations in her job application and was thus ineligible for benefits.
The Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law defines “employment misconduct” in relevant part as “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[.]” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subdiv. 6(a)(1). Although acknowledging the statutory definition, Wilson argued on appeal for application of a more forgiving, common law, “materiality” standard for determining what constitutes “employment misconduct.”
