Court Opinion

ID: 9741593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:58:42.015796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:24.900563
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result, but write separately to clear up what may have been a misunderstanding by the commissioner’s representative on the state of the law in defining disqualifying “misconduct.”
The reemployment insurance judge first determined that relator Isse did not commit misconduct and, thus, was entitled to reemployment benefits. The commissioner’s representative who ordered a review, sua sponte, of the reemployment insurance judge’s decisions stated in part:
We note the reemployment insurance judge referenced some Court of Appeals’ decisions regarding common law definition of misconduct annunciated by the Supreme Court in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973). We note, however, that the Minnesota Legislature adopted the statutory definition of misconduct effective July 1, 1997. This abrogated the common law definition and therefore the Court of Appeals’ decisions in regard to that common law definition are no longer the law in Minnesota. The statutory definition of misconduct controls.
First of all I note, and the commissioner’s attorney at oral argument agreed, that the commissioner’s representative, if writing accurately, should have said:
This abrogated the common law definition, and, therefore, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decisions in regards to that common law definition are no longer the law in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals did not write Tilseth. The Minnesota Supreme Court did, and all this court did was “rean-nunciate” the definition of misconduct “an-nunciated by the supreme court.”
*141Secondly, I take issue with the commissioner’s flat statement that Tilseth is no longer the law in Minnesota. Minn.Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (1998), defines “misconduct” as:
Misconduct is intentional conduct showing a disregard of:
(1) the employer’s interest;
(2) the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect of the employee; or
(3) the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. Misconduct also includes negligent conduct by an employee demonstrating a substantial lack of concern for the employment. Inefficiency, inadvertence, simple unsatisfactory conduct, or poor performance as a result of inability or incapacity are not misconduct.
Before this statute was enacted, the Tilseth definition of misconduct, in relevant part, was
conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct.”
McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 595 (Minn.1988) (quoting Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber, 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (quotation omitted)).
It is obvious that the statute tracked Til-seth with only minor variations. For instance, the statute uses the term “intentional conduct” and Tilseth uses the term “wilful or wanton disregard.” In other areas the statute tracks Tilseth almost word-for-word. Thus, if perhaps 80% to 90% of Tilseth was codified in the statute at issue, it can hardly be said that Tilseth and its progeny are no longer good law.
Tilseth did contain the phrase “inadverten-cies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances * * * are not to be deemed ‘misconduct.’ ” Tilseth, 295 Minn. at 375, 204 N.W.2d at 646. That part of Tilseth is not in the statute, but there is nothing affirmative in the statute to specifically exclude inadver-tencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances from becoming a defense by the employee to a charge of disqualifying misconduct by the employer. In fact, the statute seems to indicate otherwise, meaning that the concept has been retained. The statute specifically states that “[inefficiency, inadvertence, and simple unsatisfactory conduct” are the types of poor performance that (although they might get you fired) do not disqualify an employee from receiving reemployment benefits. And logic dictates that an inadvertent act or an act of ordinary negligence by an employee on one occasion (the isolated instance) fits easily within the statute’s definition of “non-misconduct,” e.g., inefficiency or inadvertence or simple unsatisfactory conduct.
On the other hand, if the inefficiency, inadvertence, or simple unsatisfactory conduct continues for a length of time, it might well turn into intentional disqualifying misconduct as defined in the statute. But exactly the same is true, and was true, under Tilseth. If you have unsatisfactory conduct, or inadvertent conduct, or ordinary negligent conduct over a sustained period of time, then, of course, that would not be conduct in an “isolated instance.” Thus, the statute tracks with Tilseth and Tilseth tracks with the statute. I suggest that once the statute is read, the interpretation of the facts can be done under the guidance of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Tilseth and its progeny, unless and until Tilseth is overruled. It has not been to this point, and I conclude it is unlikely that it will be overruled because Minnesota Statute § 268.095, subd. 6, tracks Tilseth with only minor changes.