Cari Van Hecke, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1206

Cari Van Hecke,
Relator,

vs.

Annandale Advocate, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and
Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed March 27, 2017
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Department of Employment and
Economic Development
File No. 34456969-3

Cari Van Hecke, Howard Lake, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Annandale Advocate, Inc., Annandale, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
Relator Cari Van Hecke challenges an unemployment-law judge ’s determination
that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because of a discharge for employment
misconduct. Because substantial evidence supports the unemployment-law judge ’s
determination that Van Hecke committed employment misconduct by doing freelance
work on company time and equipment, we affirm.
FACTS
From 2004 until March 2016 , Van Hecke worked as a graphic designer for the
Annandale Advocate, a local newspaper and advertiser in Wright County. The Advocate
is a small business. It is composed of a publisher, Steven Prinsen, his wife and co-owner
of the business, Sharon Schumacher, and five or six employees. Van Hecke was a full -
time employee, primarily engaged in advertising design and setup. In addition to her work
at the Advocate, Van H ecke did freelance graphic -design work. Van Hecke knew she
should not work on freelance projects during her workday on her computer at the Advocate.
Prinsen maintained the business’s computer network , and he had remote access to
all of his employees’ computers. In December 2015, he stumbled upon a folder on Van
Hecke’s computer that “seemed odd.” He began to monitor the folder and found freelance
work unrelated to the Advocate, specifically, print-advertising work for other publications.
On December 30, 2015, he met with Van Hecke and told her to refrain from doing outside
work on the Advocate’s computers. Van Hecke denied doing such work.
3
In the months f ollowing that meeting , Prinsen checked Van Hecke’s computer to
determine whether she continued to do outside work on the Advocate’s computers. Based
upon the timestamps on Van Hecke’s computer files, Prinsen could see that she was
performing outside work on her Advocate computer during her regular work hours for the
Advocate. In particular, on February 26 and March 1 of 2016, Prinsen observed that Van
Hecke spent approximately three hours of combined time using the Advocate’s equipment
to do freelance work. Further, Schumacher overheard Van Hecke call another newspaper
during working hours to d iscuss w ork unrelated to the Advocate. Because of these
infractions, Prinsen discharged Van Hecke from her employment.
Van Hecke applied for unemployment benefits . The Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development determined that she was ineligible for benefits
because she was discharged for employment misconduct . Van Hecke appealed that
determination. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) conducted a telephone hearing where
testimony was taken from Van Hecke, Prinsen, and Schumacher. Images taken from Van
Hecke’s work computer were submitted into evidence, as well as a copy of the Advocate’s
employee handbook, which prohibited both the “[u]nauthorized use of company -owned
equipment and supplies for personal use” and working on “personal proj ects” during
working hours without permission. The ULJ issued a decision, determining that Van
Hecke was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for
employment misconduct.
In the decision, the ULJ found Prinsen’s testimony credible because it was detailed,
logical, and corroborated by docum entation while Van Hecke’s blanket denial was not
4
credible in light of the evidence. As a result, the ULJ determined that Van Hecke worked
on freelance projects during working hours at the Adv ocate while using the Advocate’s
equipment to do so. Van Hecke sought reconsideration of the ULJ’s decision, which was
denied. This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
An applicant who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (2016). Van Hecke argues that the
employment-misconduct determination was based on false accusations by her employer .
She further argues that another employee at the Advocate did freelance work with the
Advocate’s equipment without facing employment termination. 1 Finally, Van Hecke
contends that, even if the allegations were true, there was insufficient evidence of
misconduct to determine her ineligible for benefits.
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision, this court may affirm, remand the case for further
proceedings, or reverse and modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator have
been prejudiced because, among other things, the decision is unsupported by substantial
evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2016). Determining whether an employee’s
conduct disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits presents a mixed question
of fact and law. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). Whether
an employee co mmitted a particular act is a question of fact viewed in the light most

1 On appeal and in her initial claim, Van Hecke notes that criticisms at work began upon
her return from maternity leave. But she does not assert that her employment termination
is attributable to that leave. Further, she did not address, through her own testimony or
questioning of witnesses, her pregnancy or leave during the hearing before the ULJ.
5
favorable to the ULJ’s decision and affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Skarhus
v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
Here, the ULJ found that Van Hec ke worked on freelance projects during work
hours at the Advocate and used the Advocate’s equipment without permission to do those
projects. Substantial evidence supports these findings.
The ULJ found the testimony of Prinsen credible . Credibility determinations are
the exclusive province of the ULJ. Id. at 345. Prinsen testified that Van Hecke was doing
freelance work on her computer during work hours and specifically pointed to February 26
and March 1 of 2016, when Van Hecke spent approximately three hours of combined time
using the Advocate’s equipment to do freelance work. Images from Van Hecke’s computer
were submitted into evidence to su pport this claim . T his is substantial evidence ; it is
evidence a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the findings that Van
Hecke worked on freelance projects during work hours at the Advocate , using the
Advocate’s equipment without permission to do so. See Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v.
Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn. 2002).
Van Hecke’s argument that the images submitted into evidence were “false
allegations” because they were from a thumb drive , not her work computer, presents a
factual dispute. The ULJ decided this dispute, based upon a cre dibility determination, in
favor of the employer. See Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 345 (noting credibility determinations
are the exclusive province of the ULJ) . Prinsen acknowledged that the screenshots were
captured from his computer, not Van Hecke’s, but he asserted that the actual files being
documented were tak en from Van Hecke’s computer. Likewise, Van Hecke’s argument
6
that another employee at the Advocate was doing freelance work is not persuasive. Prinsen
testified that the other employee “did like on e or two things,” the work was performed
during off-hours, and the employee gave Prinsen prior notice. Van Hecke did not challenge
this testimony regarding the scope and nature of the other employee’s freelance work. In
summary, s ubstantial evidence supports the ULJ’s findings that Van Hecke worked on
freelance projects during work hours at the Advocate and used the Advocate’s equipment
without permission to do those projects.
We next address whether Van Hecke’s acts constitute employment misconduct. The
legal question of whether a particular act committed by the employee constitut es
employment misconduct is reviewed de novo. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344. Refusing to
follow an employer’s reasonable policies and requests constitutes employment misconduct.
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). Here, the Advocate’s
employee handbook prohibit ed both the “[u]nauthorized use of company -owned
equipment and supplies for personal use” and working on “personal pro jects” during
working hours without permission. Further, Prinsen met with Van Hecke and instructed
her to refrain from performing freelance work on the Advocate’s computers . Van Hecke
failed to abide by her employer’s reasonable policies and requests, an d her actions
constitute employment misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s findings that Van Hecke did freelance work
on her employer’s time and equipment. This was a violation of the employer’s reasonable
policies and requests and constituted employment misconduct. The ULJ properly
determined that Van Hecke is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
7
Affirmed.