Chrystal Gardner, Relator v. Community Action Duluth, Department of Employment and Economic Development
A16-0859
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Chrystal Gardner was employed by Community Action Duluth (CAD) as a financial and career coach from Dec. 2014 to Jan. 2016 and CAD had a fragrance-free workplace policy.
- Gardner used scented oils in her hair, received reminders of the policy in Oct. 2015, and requested an unspecified accommodation but did not provide details.
- A coworker, Karen St. George, complained about an odor from Gardner’s hair; Gardner raised the comment at a cultural-inclusion meeting but did not report it to executive management.
- In Jan. 2016 CAD reassigned Gardner to a new program and appointed St. George as her supervisor; Gardner filed a workplace-conflict form and an EEOC complaint and refused to meet or communicate with St. George.
- CAD repeatedly instructed Gardner to attend team meetings, meet with St. George, and respond professionally to emails; after she failed to comply, CAD discharged her for insubordination and unprofessional conduct.
- A ULJ found Gardner ineligible for unemployment benefits for employment misconduct; Gardner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gardner’s refusal to accept and communicate with her assigned supervisor constitutes employment misconduct | Gardner: assignment was unreasonable given alleged hostile work environment and prior comment about her hair; a reasonable employee would have refused | CAD: directing an employee to meet a supervisor and attend meetings is a reasonable management instruction; Gardner repeatedly ignored directives | Court: Gardner’s refusal was insubordination and employment misconduct; ULJ’s factual findings binding; conduct disqualified her from benefits |
| Whether CAD’s failure to conduct a formal investigation into Gardner’s complaints made the supervisory assignment unreasonable | Gardner: no formal investigation and no corrective feedback shows CAD acted unreasonably | CAD: provided a private meeting and requested specifics; Gardner failed to provide incidents to substantiate claims | Court: Gardner did not provide specific allegations or evidence; CAD’s steps were reasonable and Gardner’s noncompliance justified discharge |
| Whether Gardner’s conduct falls within the average-reasonable-employee exception | Gardner: an average reasonable employee would refuse to work under these circumstances | CAD: Gardner knew St. George would remain supervisor and was warned that noncompliance could lead to termination; requests did not impose unreasonable burden | Court: insufficient evidence that an average reasonable employee would behave similarly; exception does not apply |
| Whether the ULJ conducted a fair hearing and improperly impeded Gardner’s testimony | Gardner: ULJ’s tone and interruptions prevented full presentation of hostile-environment evidence | CAD: ULJ managed an extensive hearing and solicited specific details; credibility determinations are within ULJ’s province | Court: record shows ULJ assisted parties, allowed testimony, and properly weighed credibility; no unfairness found |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002) (refusal to follow reasonable employer directives can constitute disqualifying employment misconduct)
- Deike v. Gopher Smelting, 413 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. App. 1987) (insubordination may be disqualifying misconduct)
- Snodgrass v. Oxford Props., Inc., 354 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. App. 1984) (refusal to meet or cooperate with supervisor can justify denial of benefits when harassment claims are unsupported)
- Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. App. 2004) (employer requests tied to performance can be handled separately from retaliation claims; reasonableness of employer requests is relevant)
- Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2006) (appellate deference to ULJ credibility and factual findings)