Ethan J. Lahn, Relator v. Gamestop, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development
A16-1023
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Ethan Lahn worked at GameStop from October 2015 and became assistant store manager; he signed and completed training on the employee handbook.
- Handbook and training prohibited employees from processing their own cash-register transactions and from giving cash refunds for opened, nondefective new merchandise.
- On Feb 2, 2016 Lahn processed a trade-in of his own headsets into store credit using the register; he later used the credit for a purchase processed by another employee.
- On Feb 18, 2016 Lahn obtained a cash refund for a new, opened, nondefective item; the associate processed the refund and Lahn revealed posttransaction that the item had been used.
- GameStop suspended and discharged Lahn for violating transaction policies; the Department of Employment and Economic Development and an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) found Lahn ineligible for unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct.
- Lahn appealed, arguing ignorance of the policies, a differing holiday-return policy, and that the conduct was a single incident; the ULJ’s factual findings and denial were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lahn committed disqualifying employment misconduct | Lahn said he was unaware the transactions violated policy and relied on an alleged holiday-return policy; claimed single-incident protection for the trade-in | GameStop showed handbook, training, and witness testimony that transactions violated clear policies and that two separate incidents occurred | Court held Lahn committed employment misconduct and was ineligible for benefits |
| Whether ULJ’s factual findings were supported | Lahn challenged credibility of employer witnesses and evidence about training and policies | DEED/GameStop produced handbook, training records, policy documents, and manager testimony supporting ULJ findings | Court deferred to ULJ credibility determinations and found substantial evidence supported the findings |
| Whether holiday-return policy permitted the refund Lahn obtained | Lahn argued a holiday change allowed returns of opened items for cash | GameStop countered policy required unopened packaging for new-item cash refunds and provided policy language to that effect | Court found ULJ reasonably credited GameStop’s evidence and rejected Lahn’s holiday-policy claim |
| Whether the single-incident statutory provision applied | Lahn argued the trade-in was a single incident and should be weighed accordingly | DEED/GameStop noted there were two separate transactions on different days, so single-incident provision did not apply | Court held the conduct involved multiple incidents, so the single-incident provision did not bar finding of misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Icenhower v. Total Auto., 845 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. App. 2014) (mixed question of fact and law; defer to ULJ on facts and credibility)
- Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002) (refusing to follow reasonable employer policies can constitute disqualifying misconduct)
- McDonald v. PDQ, 341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. App. 1984) (employer may expect strict adherence to cash-handling procedures)
- Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc., 785 N.W.2d 819 (Minn. App. 2010) (ULJ factual findings supported when evidence substantially sustains them)