Brent R. Henkel, Relator v. City of Mountain Iron, Department of Employment and Economic Development
A16-543
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Brent R. Henkel (relator) was suspended without pay by the City of Mountain Iron on Sept. 23, 2015, after criminal charges were filed in June 2015 for fifth-degree sale of marijuana and fifth-degree possession of methamphetamine.
- Henkel applied for unemployment benefits; DEED initially found him eligible, concluding the alleged crimes had no significant negative effect on employment.
- The city appealed after a police sergeant informed the city administrator that Henkel used a city-provided phone number (part of a city-subsidized employee phone program) to facilitate the alleged marijuana sale.
- At the ULJ hearing Henkel invoked his right not to testify about the criminal conduct; the ULJ warned an adverse inference could be drawn and Henkel declined to answer questions about the alleged conduct.
- The ULJ found by a preponderance of the evidence that Henkel possessed methamphetamine and used the city phone number to sell marijuana, and concluded this conduct constituted employment misconduct and aggravated employment misconduct because it violated employer expectations and had a significant adverse effect on employment.
- Henkel sought reconsideration and then certiorari review in the Court of Appeals; he filed a one-sentence appellate brief alleging error but provided no specific arguments or authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ULJ’s factual findings (possession and use of city phone to sell drugs) are supported by substantial evidence | Henkel: ULJ made factual errors and overlooked evidence (no specifics) | City/DEED: City presented sworn testimony and documents supporting findings; Henkel presented no rebuttal | Held: Findings are supported by substantial evidence (affirmed) |
| Whether Henkel’s conduct constitutes employment misconduct | Henkel: Suspension without just cause; conduct not shown to affect employment | City: Using city phone and drug offenses violate reasonable employer expectations and show indifference to employment | Held: Conduct constitutes employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095(6)(a) |
| Whether Henkel’s conduct constitutes aggravated employment misconduct (felony-level act that significantly adversely affected employment) | Henkel: No specific argument presented | City: Sale/possession are felony-level and use of city services significantly harmed city reputation and employment | Held: Conduct constitutes aggravated employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095(6a)(a)(1) |
| Whether appellate errors were preserved and supported by argument/authority | Henkel: Asserted general errors in facts and law without citation or analysis | Respondent: No obligation to correct undeveloped assertions; appellate burden on Henkel to show prejudice | Held: Henkel waived specific appellate arguments; mere assertions insufficient; no prejudicial error obvious on face of record |
Key Cases Cited
- Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 352 (1975) (appellant bears burden to show error and prejudice)
- Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518 (1971) (unsupported assertions of error are waived absent obvious prejudice)
- Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2011) (distinguishes fact and law in unemployment-misconduct review)
- Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2006) (factual findings viewed in light most favorable to ULJ; substantial-evidence standard)
- Pechacek v. Minn. State Lottery, 497 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1993) (off-duty criminal conduct can substantially affect public employment and employer credibility)