Curtis Ford, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0928

Curtis Ford,
Relator,

vs.

APG Cash Drawer, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 24, 2025
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 50372221-3

Curtis Ford, Savage, Minnesota (pro se relator)

APG Cash Drawer, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent employer)

Keri A. Phillips, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Harris, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
COCHRAN, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of an unemployment- law judge (ULJ),
relator challenges the ULJ’s conclusion that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits
2
arguing that (1) certain factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence and
(2) relator’s conduct does not rise to the level of employment misconduct. Because the
evidence reasonably supports the ULJ’s factual findings and relator’s conduct meets the
definition of employment misconduct, we affirm.
FACTS
The following facts are drawn from the testimony and exhibits in the record before
the ULJ. Respondent APG Cash Drawer LLC is an international business that
manufactures cash drawers. In October 2023, APG hired relator Curtis Ford to be director
of global marketing. His responsibilities included representing the company at trade
shows, branding, producing print and online materials, and corresponding with customers.
Ford also led a small marketing team.
APG’s most important trade show is the National Retail Federation (NRF) trade
show. In January 2024, the three-day trade show was held in New York City. After being
hired, it was Ford’s responsibility to prepare marketing materials and promotional products
for the NRF trade show. Ford’s job duties also required that he attend the NRF trade show
as a representative of the company.
In February 2024, a few weeks after the NRF trade show, APG terminated Ford’s
employment. Ford applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). DEED issued an initial
determination of eligibility. APG administratively appealed the determination, arguing
that Ford was ineligible for unemployment benefits. DEED scheduled a hearing before a
ULJ. The ULJ heard testimony from APG’s president, Ford, and Ford’s direct supervisor.
3
The president testified that Ford was discharged because he failed to fulfill his job
responsibilities as marketing director, especially those relating to the NRF trade show.
According to the president, Ford failed to arrange for timely shipment of marketing
materials and promotional products for the NRF trade show, and, as a result, APG lacked
the resources it needed at the trade show. The president also testified that, while in New
York, Ford missed important preshow team meetings that were held each morning of the
show. The president further testified that Ford did not have much of a presence “on the
show floor” during the NRF trade show. The president stated that Ford’s visibility at the
show was important because Ford was APG’s marketing director.
Ford’s direct supervisor corroborated the president’s testimony, testifying that Ford
missed the preshow team meetings and was not consistently present on the NRF trade-show
floor. The supervisor confirmed that all employees present at the NRF trade show,
including Ford, were sent a group text message informing them of each preshow team
meeting. The supervisor further testified to his attempts to contact Ford during the NRF
trade show, to which Ford “sometimes” responded.
Ford’s testimony differed from the testimony of his supervisor and the president.
While Ford conceded that he was responsible for some of the issues with the trade-show
promotional materials, he asserted that most of the shipping issues were due to problems
beyond his control. Regarding his attendance at the trade show, Ford testified that he
attended all preshow meetings but one. Ford stated that he missed that meeting because he
was addressing a technology issue. He also maintained that he was present on the NRF
trade-show floor each day from opening until approximately 4:30 p.m.
4
In a written decision following the hearing, the ULJ determined that Ford engaged
in employment misconduct and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits. The
ULJ made factual findings to support this determination, which were based on the ULJ’s
determination that the testimony of the APG representatives was more credible than Ford’s
testimony. Those factual findings included that Ford was not present “during pre -show
meetings” and that Ford was not “on the trade show floor during the majority of the NRF
show.” And the ULJ determined that APG had a “right to reasonably expect that their
director of global marketing would attend pre- show meetings and be present on the trade
floor during a major promotional event.” Because Ford did not meet this reasonable
expectation, the ULJ concluded that APG terminated Ford for employment misconduct and
Ford was therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits under Minnesota law. Ford
requested reconsideration of the ULJ’s decision, which was denied.
Ford appeals by writ of certiorari.
DECISION
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision , we may affirm or remand for further
proceedings, or we may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator
may have been prejudiced because the ULJ’s “findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision
are,” among other reasons, affected by an error of law or unsupported by substantial
evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2024).
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
the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact. Icenhower v. Total Auto.,
5
Inc., 845 N.W.2d 849, 855 (Minn. App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2014). Whether
the act of an employee amounts to misconduct is a question of law that is reviewed
de novo.1 Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315.
We review the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and
will “not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably
tends to sustain them.” Id. If there is conflicting evidence in the record, we defer to the
ULJ’s ability to weigh the conflicting evidence. Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc.,
696 N.W.2d 799, 800 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2005). “Credibility
determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Bangtson v. Allina Med. Grp. , 766 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Minn. App. 2009) (quoting
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006)). But if the credibility
determination has a significant effect on the outcome of the decision, “the [ULJ] must set
out the reasons for crediting or discrediting that testimony.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 1a (2024).
I. There is substantial evidence to support the ULJ’s determination.
Ford argues that the ULJ’s decision of ineligibility should be reversed because
certain factual findings made by the ULJ are not supported by substantial evidence.

1 In Ford’s brief he states that “APG bears the burden of proving misconduct.” This is
incorrect. “An applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits must be determined
based upon the information available without regard to burden of proof.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.069, subd. 2 (2024); see also Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 205
(Minn. App. 2004) (“Employment misconduct is now determined without regard to any
common law burden of proof.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004) . The ULJ therefore
makes its decisions based on “independent findings of fact” not whether a party met a
burden of proof. Vargas, 673 N.W.2d at 205.
6
Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Posey v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc. ,
879 N.W.2d 662, 665 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted). In making this argument,
Ford challenges the ULJ’s determination that the preponderance of the evidence shows that
(1) “Ford was not present during the trade- show meetings and the majority of the NRF,”
and (2) “Ford did not miss these meetings or the show for a business-related purpose or
[for] reasons beyond his control.” Ford’s argument is unavailing.
First, the record demonstrates there is substantial evidence to support the ULJ’s
finding regarding Ford’s absence from the daily preshow meetings and during the show
itself. At the hearing , the president testified Ford was not present at any of the preshow
team meetings even though Ford was informed of the meetings through a group text
message that was sent to all 14 APG employees who attended the NRF trade show. The
president also testified that Ford was not “on the show floor much to the point where we
were all wondering where he was.” Similarly, Ford’s supervisor testified that Ford was
not present at any of the preshow team meetings and that he was reachable and present on
the NRF trade-show floor only “from time to time.”
To the extent that Ford’s testimony differed from testimony of the president and the
supervisor, the ULJ found that “the employer’s witnesses’ testimony was more credible.”
To support this credibility determination, the ULJ highlighted how the supervisor’s
testimony corroborated the president’s testimony and how Ford’s cross-examination about
the preshow meetings called into question his own testimony that he actually attended two
of the three meetings. Because the ULJ set forth logical reasons for finding the APG
7
witnesses more credible than Ford, we defer to that credibility determination. See Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a); Bangtson, 766 N.W.2d at 332 . And, because a reasonable
mind could accept the APG witness testimony “as adequate to support [the] conclusion”
that Ford was absent from preshow meetings and the majority of the NRF trade show, we
conclude there is substantial evidence to support th is factual finding. See Posey,
879 N.W.2d at 665.
Ford also argues that there is a lack of substantial evidence to support a related
factual finding by the ULJ—specifically, that Ford’s absences were not due to
business-related reasons or for reasons beyond his control. The ULJ made this finding
based on Ford’s failure to provide reasons for his absences and based on evidence that APG
employees had difficulty reaching Ford during the NRF trade show. Ford argues the
evidence relied upon by the ULJ does not support the ULJ’s finding because he provided
a business-related reason for missing one of three preshow meetings and because the ULJ
“failed to clarify” through questioning the length of Ford’s absences from the NRF trade
show. We are not persuaded.
As an initial matter, the record reflects that the ULJ did inquire into Ford’s absences.
At the hearing, the ULJ asked Ford if he missed any of the preshow meetings and Ford
responded that he missed only one meeting. Ford testified that he missed the first meeting
because he was resolving a technology issue. The ULJ then asked why he thought the
president testified that Ford was absent from all the meetings. In response, Ford insisted
that he was not absent except for the one meeting and that the president thought otherwise
due to a “[l]ack of awareness.” The ULJ also asked Ford if he was present on the NRF
8
trade-show floor and Ford responded, “Yes, I was” and stated there were multiple witnesses
who saw him conducting activities on the floor. The ULJ offered Ford another opportunity
at the end of the hearing to explain any absences, but Ford declined. In sum, given Ford’s
testimony, the ULJ sufficiently inquired into Ford’s absences.
In addition, viewing the testimony as a whole, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the ULJ’s determination that Ford did not provide compelling reasons for his
absences. T he record reflects that the ULJ considered Ford’s testimony regarding his
attendance at the preshow meetings, his reason for missing the first meeting, and his
testimony about his presence on the NRF trade-show floor. But the ULJ did not credit that
testimony. Instead, the ULJ credited the APG witnesses. Given the ULJ’s cred ibility
determination and the overall lack of evidence as to the reason or reasons for Ford’s
absences during the NRF trade show , we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support
the ULJ’s determination that Ford’s absences were not due to business-related reasons or
reasons beyond his control.
II. The ULJ did not err in determining that Ford was discharged for employment
misconduct.

Ford next argues that the ULJ erred by determining that Ford committed
employment misconduct. Employment misconduct is defined as “any intentional,
negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious violation of the
standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2024). “The employer has a right to expect an employee
to work when scheduled.” Little v. Larson Bus Serv., 352 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Minn. App.
9
1984), superseded by statute on other grounds, Minn. Stat § 268.095, subd. 6(e) (Supp.
2007). A single absence, without permission from the employer, can amount to
misconduct. Hanson v. Crestliner Inc., 772 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn. App. 2009).
Ford makes two arguments to support his contention that the ULJ erred in
determining his conduct at the NRF trade show meet s the definition of employment
misconduct: (1) APG did not communicate to Ford what its expectations were regarding
his duties at the NRF trade show, and (2) his absences do not amount to employment
misconduct. DEED responds that (1) Ford either knew, or should have known, that his
professional duties at the NRF trade show required that he be present at preshow meetings
and on the NRF trade-show floor and (2) that his absences amount to misconduct. We
agree with DEED.
First, Ford’s argument that APG failed to express adequately its expectation
regarding Ford’s need to be present and accessible at the NRF trade show is unavailing
because it is contrary to the record. The record reflects that Ford was informed of the
preshow meetings prior to their occurrence through a group text message, that Ford was
aware that he needed to be at the NRF trade show from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 4:30
p.m., and that Ford’s supervisor had contacted Ford to inquire about his whereabouts
during the NRF trade show. Thus, Ford was informed of when he needed to be present for
work during the NRF trade show and was aware of his supervisor’s expectation that he be
present on the NRF trade-show floor and attend preshow meetings. Regardless of whether
the president and the supervisor expressly informed Ford that his presence was mandatory,
10
APG had a reasonable right to expect that Ford, as director of global marketing, would be
present at work when scheduled. See Little, 352 N.W.2d at 815.
Second, Ford argues that his absences, as found by the ULJ, were not sufficient for
the ULJ to conclude that Ford engaged i n a serious violation of the standards of behavior
the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee. More specifically, Ford
asserts the ULJ erred in concluding that he engaged in employment misconduct because
the ULJ did not quantify how long Ford was absent from the NRF trade-show floor. The
standard for employment misconduct, however, does not require an exact determination of
the amount of time that Ford was absent for his actions to constitute employment
misconduct. Rather employment misconduct is defined as “any intentional, negligent, or
indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious violation of the standards of
behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 6(a) (emphasis added). And a single absence, without permission from
the employer, can amount to misconduct. Hanson, 772 N.W.2d at 543. As a result, the
ULJ did not err by not quantifying Ford’s absences in the order. Nor did the ULJ err in
concluding that Ford intentionally committed “a serious violation” of APG’s reasonable
expectations based on the ULJ’s findings that Ford missed the preshow meetings and was
not present during most of the NRF trade show without a compelling reason. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 6(a). Ford’s violation of APG’s reasonable expectations was serious
because the NRF trade show was APG’s biggest trade show of the year. Consequently,
Ford’s conduct meets the definition of employment misconduct. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095,
subd. 6(a).
11
In sum, the ULJ did not err by determining that Ford was ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.