Icenhower v. Total Automotive, Inc.
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 46
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Relator Aireal Ieenhower challenges a ULJ’s denial of subpoenas and a finding of unemployment ineligibility for employment misconduct.
- Ieenhower reported the January 11, 2013 theft of 22 Ritalin pills; employer Total Automotive and the Carver County Sheriff’s Office investigated.
- Ieenhower lied during the theft investigation, including claims about a January 14 conversation with J.E. that supported alleged wrongdoing by C.M.; she later admitted fabricating aspects of the narrative.
- Total Automotive discharged Ieenhower for lying during the investigation; DEED determined she was ineligible for unemployment benefits for employment misconduct.
- Ieenhower sought three subpoenas to compel production of documents and testimony; the ULJ denied all subpoenas; DEED did not issue subpoenas.
- Appeal involves whether the ULJ abused discretion in subpoena rulings under Minnesota law and whether the lie constitutes employment misconduct given the facts and applicable standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ULJ abuse discretion by denying subpoenas? | Ieenhower argues denial prevented full defense; subpoenas could show ADD impact and C.M. involvement. | ULJ sedeemed subpoenas unnecessary; record already developed and testimony sufficient. | No abuse; subpoenas denial within ULJ discretion. |
| Did lying during the workplace-theft investigation constitute unemployment misconduct? | Lie was immaterial and possibly caused by ADD; not misconduct. | Lie to support allegations against C.M. violated employer policies and constitutes misconduct. | Substantial evidence supports misconduct for lying during the investigation. |
| Did ADD/mental-illness relief apply to excuse the conduct? | ADD impairment caused the lie; conduct should be excused as a consequence of mental illness. | No evidence that ADD caused the lie; statute excludes conduct caused by mental illness only when proven. | No exemption; conduct not shown to be solely a consequence of ADD and lies supported as employment misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 660 N.W.2d 157 (Minn.App.2003) (prehearing subpoena issues and development of defense; remand not required where issues not properly developed)
- Ntamere v. Decisionone Corp., 673 N.W.2d 179 (Minn.App.2003) (reversal where subpoenas not enforced for improper reasons)
- Cherveny v. 10,000 Auto Parts, 353 N.W.2d 685 (Minn.App.1984) (dishonesty during employer investigation constitutes misconduct)
- Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.2011) (misconduct standard; unemployment benefits paid only to those unemployed through no fault of their own)
- In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139, 720 N.W.2d 807 (Minn.2006) (overview of standard for review of information requests and discovery-like procedures)
- Parkway Manor Healthcare Ctr., 448 N.W.2d 116 (Minn.App.1989) (administrative-law judges’ discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Midway Care Ctr., Inc. v. Minn. Comm’r of Human Servs., 615 N.W.2d 865 (Minn.App.2000) (proper scope of administrative discovery and discretion)
- Baron v. Lens Crafters, Inc., 514 N.W.2d 305 (Minn.App.1994) (dishonesty in employment context can be misconduct)
- Santillana v. Cent. Minn. Council on Aging, 791 N.W.2d 303 (Minn.App.2010) (material misrepresentation in hiring context and misconduct)
- Hansen v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 709, 412 N.W.2d 320 (Minn.App.1987) (material misrepresentation standard; not directly applicable but cited on materiality principles)