Heidi Kardell, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-0772

Heidi Kardell,
Relator,

vs.

Institute of Facial Surgery St. Paul,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed November 27, 2017
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35214191-3

Heidi Kardell, Mounds View, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Dennis B. Johnson, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent
employer)

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

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Reyes, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she
is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Heidi Kardell began working as an office manager for respondent Institute
of Facial Surgery St. Paul (the employer) i n September 2015. She was routinely late for
work, sometimes because she was running errands for the employer but often for personal
reasons. The employer’s owner spoke to her about the tardiness, but it persisted. In late
May 2016, Kardell began modifying her time reports, which she had access to as the office
manager. Thereafter, she modified her time reports to reflect on-time arrival on nearly a
daily basis. After the accounts manager confirmed discrepancies between Kardell’s arrival
times and the recorded start times on three specific dates, Kardell was discharged on
December 19, 2016.
Kardell applied for unemployment benefits. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) initially determined that Kardell was
ineligible for benefits because she committed agg ravated employment misconduct by
falsifying her time reports. Kardell appealed . After a hearing, a ULJ determined that
Kardell committed employment misconduct, but not aggravated employment misconduct,
by repeated tardiness and falsif ication of time repo rts, making her ineligible for

3
unemployment benefits. Kardell requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed. Kardell
appeals by writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
An employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2016) . Employment
misconduct is any “intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job
that displays clearly: (1) a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has
the right to reasonably expect of the employee; or (2) a substantial lack of concern for the
employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2017).
Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of
law and fact. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). Whether
an employee committed a particular act is an issue of fact . Id. We view a ULJ’s factual
findings in the light most favorable to the decisi on, deferring to the ULJ’ s credibility
determinations, and will not disturb those findings if they are supported by substantial
evidence. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Whether
an employee’s act constitutes employment misconduct is a legal question, which we review
de novo. Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315.
Kardell does not challenge the ULJ’s findings that she regularly arrived at the office
after her scheduled start time and modified her time reports. But she disputes the findings
that she lacked a legitimate business reason for being late and that the modifications she
made to her time reports were false. Kardell asserts that she appropriately modified her
time reports to account for time she was expected to work outside of the office. The record

4
indicates otherwise. While it is undisputed that Kardell performed some work outside the
office, which may have justified occasional late arrivals and related time -report
modifications, the accounts manager testified, and Kardell acknowledged, that she did not
have outside assignments every day. Kardell nonetheless modified her time reports on
nearly a daily basis from the end of May until she was discharged in December. And the
accounts manager personally observed Kardell’s late arrival on three occas ions when
Kardell reported regular work hours. This evidence amply supports the ULJ’s findings that
Kardell was repeatedly tardy and falsified her time reports.
An employee who disregards an employer’s tardiness or absence policies violates
the standards of behavior an employer can reasonably expect from an employee, and,
therefore, commits employment misconduct. Id. at 317. Falsifying a time report also is
employment misconduct. Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc., 378 N.W.2d 660, 663 (Minn. App.
1985). Kardell does not argue otherwise. The ULJ correctly concluded that Kardell
committed employment misconduct by disregarding the employer’s directives regarding
her arrival time and by falsifying her time reports.
This employment misconduct disqualifies Kardell for unemployment benefits if it
was the basis for her discharge. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (providing that
employee is ineligible for benefits if “discharged because of employment misconduct”
(emphasis added) ). Kardell contends that her medical problems and “personal issues”
between herself and the owner led to her discharge. At the hearing, she testified that she
believes her discharge was due “ at least in part ” to her “standing up to [the owner] about
some issues including prescription writing,” but she did not offer further explanation. By

5
contrast, the employer’s owner testified, consistent with the evidence of Kardell’s conduct,
that he discharged Kardell because “[s]he was habitually late and she just was not her e at
the office when I needed her,” that she “was oftentimes not present,” and “she was
falsifying her timesheets.” The ULJ accepted that reason, and i t is not this court’s role to
reweigh the evidence. On this record, we discern no error in the ULJ’s finding that Kardell
was discharged because of employment misconduct.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s finding that Kardell was discharged
because she disregarded the employer’s tardiness policy and falsified her time reports.
These actions amount to employment misconduct and make her ineligible to receive
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.