Vincent Rosetta v. Quality Bicycle Products, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development
A16-0959
| Minn. Ct. App. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Rosetta left HED and began working for Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. (QBP) on June 1, 2015.
- On November 17, 2015, QBP learned Rosetta was under criminal investigation for allegedly stealing from HED; QBP placed him on indefinite unpaid suspension, which by statute became a discharge on December 16.
- DEED initially found Rosetta eligible for unemployment benefits because the record did not show he committed employment misconduct while employed by QBP.
- At the ULJ hearing QBP argued Rosetta admitted theft to investigators and cited its handbook policies permitting termination for theft or dishonesty; Rosetta denied misconduct at QBP and said he was forthcoming in hiring.
- The ULJ concluded Rosetta’s termination was for a reason other than employment or aggravated employment misconduct and awarded benefits; QBP sought reconsideration and an additional evidentiary hearing, pointing to subsequent guilty pleas and other allegations.
- The ULJ affirmed and denied an additional hearing; the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying precedent that pre-employment criminal acts generally do not constitute disqualifying misconduct at a later employer.
Issues
| Issue | QBP's Argument | Rosetta/DEED's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rosetta was discharged for employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 | Rosetta’s alleged theft and alleged misrepresentations about past employment/hiring render him culpable for employment misconduct | QBP suspended/discharged him for being the subject of a criminal investigation, not for acts while employed at QBP; no misrepresentation to QBP was shown | Held: Not employment misconduct — no evidence Rosetta committed disqualifying acts during QBP employment or misrepresented to QBP |
| Whether the alleged pre‑employment theft constitutes aggravated employment misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6a | Theft allegation (a felony) has significant adverse effect and therefore is aggravated misconduct justifying disqualification | Pre‑employment criminal acts cannot be used to disqualify under aggravated‑misconduct precedent absent conduct during employment | Held: Not aggravated employment misconduct — Santillana controls; pre‑employment criminal acts do not qualify |
| Whether the ULJ erred by denying QBP an additional evidentiary hearing | New evidence (guilty plea, alleged hiring misrepresentations) would change outcome and QBP had good cause for not presenting earlier | QBP had full opportunity at first hearing; new evidence was not shown to be likely outcome‑determinative or previously unavailable | Held: No abuse of discretion — ULJ properly denied additional hearing |
| Proper standard of review / statutory construction | QBP urged broader reading of statute allowing employers to base discharge on pre‑employment criminal conduct | Court should apply de novo review to statutory questions and follow precedent; unemployment law remedial and narrowly construed against disqualification | Held: De novo review; applied remedial‑construction principles and followed binding precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Santillana v. Cent. Minn. Council on Aging, 791 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. App. 2010) (pre‑employment criminal acts do not constitute aggravated employment misconduct at a later employer)
- Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2011) (unemployment disqualification provisions are narrowly construed in favor of awarding benefits)
- Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. App. 2015) (apply de novo review to statutory interpretation and ultimate eligibility question when facts undisputed)
- Kelly v. Ambassador Press, Inc., 792 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. App. 2010) (appellate review defers to ULJ on denial of additional evidentiary hearing)