This opinion will be unpublished and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

A14-1561

Carrie L. Zupko, 

Relator, 

vs. 

St. Francis Campus Credit Union, 

Respondent, 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

Respondent.

Filed March 2, 2015

Affirmed

Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 32229742-5

Carrie L. Zupko, Flensburg, Minnesota (pro se relator)

St. Francis Campus Credit Union, National Credit Union Administration, Elizabeth 

Martin, Austin, Texas (respondent)

Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic 

Development) 

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and 

Reyes, Judge. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

BJORKMAN, Judge

Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she 

was discharged because of employment misconduct, arguing that the false representations 

she made at her supervisor’s request were part of a single incident and a good-faith error 

in judgment. We affirm.

FACTS

Relator Carrie Zupko worked for respondent St. Francis Campus Credit Union as 

an office operations manager. In early January 2014, examiners from the National Credit 

Union Administration (NCUA) were on-site to examine St. Francis’s financial records. 

The NCUA examiners requested a computer file from Zupko’s supervisor. The 

supervisor in turn asked Zupko to call the NCUA, pretend to be from the accounting 

software company that maintained St. Francis’s financial records, and state that there was 

a problem with the file in question, making it unavailable until the following week. 

Zupko did as her supervisor requested.

On January 23, Zupko’s supervisor asked Zupko to reverse a loan transaction on 

the supervisor’s son’s account. The supervisor did not provide Zupko with any 

documentation for the reversal. While such documentation was normally required, 

Zupko assumed her supervisor “would take care of the paperwork” and performed the 

reversal without it.
3

Two days later, Zupko learned that the NCUA was investigating her supervisor for 

fraud. She informed the NCUA about the early January phone call. Zupko was 

discharged on January 29.

Zupko applied to respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and 

Economic Development (DEED) for unemployment benefits. DEED initially determined 

that Zupko is eligible for benefits, and St. Francis appealed. At the evidentiary hearing, 

Zupko acknowledged that she had called the NCUA and “pretended to be someone from 

an accounting software company.” Zupko explained that she did not want to do it but did 

not know what would happen to her if she did not follow her supervisor’s instructions. 

She also acknowledged that she altered a loan. The ULJ determined that Zupko 

committed employment misconduct and therefore is ineligible for benefits. Zupko sought 

reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed. Zupko brings this certiorari appeal.

D E C I S I O N

An employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for 

unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2014). Whether an employee 

committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of law and fact. Stagg v. Vintage 

Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). Whether an employee committed a 

particular act is an issue of fact, which we review for substantial evidence, but whether 

the act constitutes employment misconduct is a legal question, which we review de novo. 

Id. 

Employment misconduct is any “intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on 

the job or off the job that displays clearly: (1) a serious violation of the standards of 
4

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). Mere “good faith errors in judgment” are not employment misconduct. Id., subd. 

6(b)(6) (2014). If the conduct in question was limited to a single incident, “that is an 

important fact that must be considered in deciding whether the conduct rises to the level 

of employment misconduct.” Id., subd. 6(d) (2014).

Zupko does not dispute that she gave false information to the NCUA but argues 

that it was a single good-faith error in judgment that a reasonable employee would have 

made under the circumstances. We disagree.

First, the record indicates that Zupko’s false statement to the NCUA was not an 

isolated incident. The ULJ found that Zupko also complied with her supervisor’s request 

to alter a loan despite knowing that she did not have the documentation required to do 

so.

1

 While the ULJ did not conclude that altering the loan was itself employment 

misconduct, that act defeats Zupko’s argument that her fraudulent phone call to the 

NCUA was a single incident of dishonesty.

Second, the nature of Zupko’s conduct is inconsistent with the notion of a goodfaith error in judgment. An employee owes a duty of loyalty to her employer. Marn v. 

Fairview Pharmacy Servs. LLC, 756 N.W.2d 117, 121 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied

(Minn. Dec. 16, 2008). And an employer has the right to rely on the employee’s 

 

1

Zupko argues that she did not know the loan in question was fraudulent. The ULJ did 

not find that Zupko was aware of the fraudulent nature of the loan, only that Zupko failed 

to comply with standard documentation policy. The record substantially supports that 

finding. 
5

integrity. Frank v. Heartland Auto. Servs., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 626, 630-31 (Minn. App.

2008). “Dishonesty that is connected with employment may constitute misconduct.” 

Icenhower v. Total Auto. Inc., 845 N.W.2d 849, 856 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation 

omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2014).

Zupko knowingly and intentionally made a false statement to a federal agency in 

connection with an examination of her employer’s financial records. Her conduct was an 

extremely serious violation of St. Francis’s reasonable expectations. Zupko’s intentional 

dishonesty is not a good-faith error in judgment. Cf. Unbank Co. v. Dolphin Temp. Help 

Servs., Inc., 485 N.W.2d 332, 333 (Minn. App. 1992) (explaining that determination of 

good faith is an issue of “honesty of intent”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 1992). 

Zupko asserts that she acted in good faith because she lied at the behest of her 

supervisor. We agree that Zupko’s supervisor placed her in a difficult situation. But 

Zupko owed a duty of loyalty to St. Francis, not her supervisor. She could have asked 

questions or informed someone of her supervisor’s request. See Marn, 756 N.W.2d at 

121-22 (holding that employee’s conduct undermining employer’s interests, rather than 

reporting workplace concerns to appropriate entities, was misconduct). Instead, she 

chose to lie to the NCUA. 

Zupko also contends that her false statement was “immaterial” because her 

supervisor had already “bankrupted [St. Francis] through fraud.” We are not persuaded. 

The degree of actual damage caused by Zupko’s fraudulent phone call has little or no 

bearing on whether that conduct was employment misconduct. See Skarhus v. Davanni’s 

Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (opting to examine employee’s conduct 
6

“in the context of her job responsibilities” rather than the significance of the adverse 

impact on the employer).

On this record, we conclude that Zupko committed employment misconduct and 

is, therefore, ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.