Shivsaywack Singh, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0832

Shivsaywack Singh,
Relator,

vs.

Grand Casino Hinckley,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed November 12, 2019
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 36926905

Shivsaywack Singh, Hinckley, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Grand Casino Hinckley, Hinckley, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, 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 an unemployment-law judge’s decision that relator is ineligible
for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We
affirm.
FACTS
Relator Shivsaywack Singh wor ked as a security officer for respondent Grand
Casino Hinckley from February 2016 until September 18, 2018. Three incidents led to his
dismissal. First, in May 2018, Grand Casino received complaints from five female
employees who felt “uncomfortable” because Singh followed them, ogled them, and asked
them personal questions. He commented that one employee had a “big butt” or a “nice
butt” and told another employee, “You are so beautiful. You deserve the best. I’m going
to get you a raise.”
Second, in June, Singh told a female guest that she was “so beautiful” and “I just
want to caress your body.” While making these statements, he inadvertently activated the
microphone on his radio, broadcasting the statements to between 15 and 17 other security
officers and a dispatcher. Three days later, he told a nother guest and her younger sister
that he could arrange for them to be hired “instantly” by Grand Casino and get raises
“within an hour”; the guest complained to a supervisor. Soon after, Singh was placed on
unpaid leave on an unrelated matter. He returned to work on August 16, 2018.
Third, on September 18, Singh approached a female guest, T.S., at a vending
machine and said, “Hi pretty lady,” and asked another female guest, J., whether the two

3
women were at the casino together. When J. said that they were not together, Singh asked
T.S. whom she was with, and T.S. told him it was no ne of his business and he should be
patrolling the hallways. He replied that he “just enjoys conversation with women” a nd
followed her to her room, making her feel “scared.” When she reported the incident to her
husband, he went into the hallway and told Singh to leave his wife alone. T.S. and her
husband complained to Grand Casino, and Singh was dismissed later that day.
Singh applied for unemployment benefits and was deemed ineligible by respondent
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) because he
was discharged for misconduct. At the hearing challenging that determination, the
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) received evidence, including the statements of employees
and guests who complained about Singh; testimony from Grand Casino ’s director of
security and risk management, a security manager, and a business partner; and documents
detailing Grand Casino’s policies, as well as Singh’s training and warnings regarding those
policies. Singh denied the allegations of misconduct.
The ULJ found that Grand Casino discharged Singh for inappropriate conduct with
employees and guests. The ULJ specifically found Singh’s testimony “not credible”
because his description of the September 18 incident was less plausible and less detailed
than T.S.’s statement, and because numerous complainants reported similar inappropriate
behavior. And the ULJ conclud ed this conduct constitutes disqualifying employment
misconduct.
Singh sought reconsideration. In affirming the decision, the ULJ noted that, while
it was unclear whether Singh continued to deny that he committed the conduct or whether

4
he argued that Grand Casino failed to bring the conduct to his attention so he could correct
it, in either case Singh’s testimony was not credible and the record evidence established
that he was repeatedly warned not to engage in this conduct.
Singh appeals by writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
On review of a ULJ decision , we may reverse or modify the decision if the
substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because, among other reasons, the
decision is “unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted”
or is “arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 26 8.105, subd. 7(d ) (2018). An employee
who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2018). 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). We defer to a ULJ’s credibility determinations and uphold a ULJ’s
findings of fact if su pported by substantial evidence. Cunningham v. Wal -Mart Assocs.,
Inc., 809 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011). And we review de novo whether the facts
found by the ULJ constitute employment misconduct. Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , 644
N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
I. Substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s findings that Singh repeatedly made
inappropriate comments toward employees and guests.

The ULJ found that Grand Casino terminated Singh’s employment based on three
incidents. As to the first inci dent, t he ULJ’s finding that Singh made inappropriate
statements to five female employees in May 2018 is supported by their written complaints,

5
which detailed Singh’s conduct and how it made them feel. Singh’s signed
acknowledgment in his employee file shows that he was orally warned not to engage in
such conduct again. Singh’s employee file also supports the ULJ’s findings with respect
to the second incident. He received an oral warning for commenting on a female’s beauty
and his desire to “caress [he r] body.” And Grand Casino completed an incident report
documenting that Singh promised another guest that he could arrange for her and her sister
to be hired “instantly.” The ULJ’s findings regarding the third incident—which led to his
immediate dismissal—are supported by T.S.’s written statement and t he testimony of
Singh’s supervisors and others involved in reporting the incident. Singh himself confirmed
most of the details of this incident in his statements to supervisors and in his testimony
before the ULJ. He admitted talking with two female guests, T.S. directing him to carry
on with his patrol work, choosing to follow T.S., and receiving a complaint from T.S. ’s
husband. In sum, t he ULJ’s findings regarding Singh’s statements and conduct are
supported by substantial evidence.
II. Singh’s actions constitutes employment misconduct.
Employment misconduct is “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on
the job or off the job that displays clearly: (1) a serious violat ion 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) (2018).
“As a general rule, r efusing to abide by an employer’ s reasonable policies and requests
amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804.

6
As a security officer, Singh was expected to interact and socialize with guests to
promote their having a positive exp erience. But Grand Casino does not condone
harassment of guests or coworkers . At all relevant times, Grand Casino had a written
policy that prohibits employees from “[m]aking unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature as a condition of the
[employee’s] continued employment.” The policy articulates “zero tolerance” with regard
to harassment. All employees participate in annual training “to clarify the harassment-free
policy.” Grand Casino’s director of security and risk management testified that during
training employees receive “examples of what’s good and bad communication and
conversation” and are directed not to converse about a person’s appearance or gender. The
director testified that calling someone a “pretty lady” is an obvious violation of the
harassment policy.
Singh does not deny that Grand Casino has the right to reasonably expect employees
to comply with its harassment policy. See Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 316 (ruling that employer
had the right to expect an employee to comply with its reasonable absenteeism policies set
forth in an employment manual). And he does not dispute that violation of the policy
demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for the employment. Rather, he takes issue with
the ULJ’s factual determinations. He suggests that his actual conduct in each of the three
incidents was innocuous and consistent with his job requirement to be friendly, his record
of harassing conduct was “falsified,” and he recei ved no warnings from Grand Casino to

7
change his conduct.1 But this court does not reweigh the evidence and defers to the ULJ’s
credibility determinations. See Cunningham, 809 N.W.2d at 235.
Because the record evidence amply supports the ULJ’s determina tion that Singh
was dismissed for harassing female employees and guests, and such conduct constitutes a
serious violation of Grand Casino’s reasonable behavioral standards, Singh is not eligible
to receive unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.

1 Singh also delves into the circumstances of his unpaid leave, which he claims was based
on false allegations of drug and alcohol use on the job. The ULJ disregarded evidence on
that subject because it was not related to Singh’s termination. We agree that it is not
relevant.