Narrative Opinion Summary
Relator Joyce Raaum was employed at Glenwood Retirement Homes from August 1976 until her discharge on January 4, 1984. Two weeks prior to her discharge, she possessed a pair of snow boots belonging to another employee, which were distinctly different from her own in size, color, and marked with the owner's name. Raaum contended that the possession was accidental and that she only realized the boots were not hers when they were confiscated by her employer. The Commissioner deemed her possession of the boots as theft, resulting in her discharge for misconduct and disqualification from unemployment benefits under Minn.Stat. 268.09, subd. 1(2. Supp.1983). The court's review of the appeal was limited, and upon examination of the evidence, it was found to support the Commissioner's findings. Additionally, Raaum failed to serve her appeal brief to the Attorney General, representing the Commissioner, which was a violation of procedural rules. The decision was affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Misconduct and Disqualification from Unemployment Benefits under Minn.Stat. 268.09subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The possession of another employee's snow boots, deemed as theft, constituted misconduct leading to disqualification from unemployment benefits.
Reasoning: The Commissioner deemed her possession of the boots as theft, resulting in her discharge for misconduct and disqualification from unemployment benefits under Minn.Stat. 268.09, subd. 1(2. Supp.1983).
Procedural Requirements for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Failure to serve an appeal brief to the Attorney General, representing the Commissioner, constituted a procedural violation affecting the appeal process.
Reasoning: Additionally, Raaum failed to serve her appeal brief to the Attorney General, representing the Commissioner, which was a violation of procedural rules.
Standard of Review in Misconduct Findingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's review was limited to examining the evidence to determine if it supported the Commissioner's findings of misconduct.
Reasoning: The court's review of the appeal was limited, and upon examination of the evidence, it was found to support the Commissioner's findings.