Sisay N. Beri, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1668

Sisay N. Beri,
Relator,

vs.

Transit Team, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed July 7, 2025
Affirmed
Ede, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
50560190-3

Sisay N. Beri, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Transit Team, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Bond, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
EDE, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator employee challenges the decision of an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits because
he was discharged for employment misconduct and aggravated employment misconduct.
2
Relator argues that the ULJ erred by (A) determining that he engaged in employment
misconduct, (B) determining that he engaged in aggravated employment misconduct, and
(C) failing to assist him in presenting evidence and to ensure that all relevant facts were
clearly and fully developed. Because the ULJ’s determinations that relator committed
employment misconduct and aggravated employment misconduct are supported by
substantial evidence, and because relator received a fair opportunity to present his claims,
we discern no basis to reverse the ULJ’s ineligibility decision and therefore affirm.
FACTS
Relator Sisay N. Beri was discharged by his employer, Transit Team Inc., after an
incident that occurred while Beri was working. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) deemed Beri ineligible for
unemployment benefits, and Beri appealed to a ULJ. The following facts stem from the
ULJ’s evidentiary hearing.
Transit Team contracts with Metro Mobility to provide transportation services for
vulnerable adults. Beri was employed full-time as a paratransit driver from October 2021
to April 2024. Transit Team terminated Beri’s employment for failing to properly secure a
vulnerable adult (the client) during transport, in violation of Transit Team’s written
policies.
Transit Team trains its employees on safety measures, including the safe use of
seatbelts. Under Transit Team’s five-point strap-down procedure for securing wheelchairs,
drivers are required to secure the wheelchair to the floor and then use a lap strap and a chest
strap to create “a full-functioning seatbelt.” Transit Team’s human -resources
3
representative, who testified during the evidentiary hearing, explained that Transit Team’s
clients are vulnerable adults and that, if a client’s wheelchair is not properly secured, the
client “can either pull at the strap, [or] choke on it, . . . and [Transit Team is] responsible
for their safety.” Beri completed Transit Team’s trainings and passed the company’s tests
on these procedures.
On April 8, 2024, Beri picked up the client, who used the assistance of a wheelchair.
Beri secured the client’s wheelchair, as required by Transit Team’s policies. During the
trip, the client told Beri that the seatbelt was too tight. Beri loosened the seatbelt and
continued driving. After the seatbelt was loosened, the client began yelling for help because
his position in the wheelchair had shifted and the seatbelt had slid around his neck. Video
footage from within the bus that Beri was driving shows the client repeatedly trying to alert
Beri and yelling, “Can you help me with the seatbelt, it’s around my neck!” At one point,
the client stated that he was going to fall on the floor. After several minutes, the client
stopped yelling and lost consciousness. The client “ultimately slip[ped] out of his
wheelchair” and fell to the floor of the bus, with the “seatbelt around his neck.”
Beri testified at the evidentiary hearing that he did not hear the client calling for
help. The video footage, however, reflects that Beri looked in the rearview mirror and
turned around after the client made noise several times. Beri did not stop the bus or call for
assistance. By the time that Beri arrived at the client’s destination, the client was
“unresponsive.” Beri called for an ambulance to assist the client.
After investigating the incident and reviewing the video footage, Transit Team
terminated Beri’s employment. Beri later applied to DEED for unemployment benefits.
4
DEED ultimately determined that Beri was ineligible for unemployment benefits because
he was discharged for employment misconduct. Beri appealed DEED’s determination.
The ULJ conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing to consider whether Beri was
discharged for employment misconduct and aggravated employment misconduct. Beri and
an acquaintance of Beri’s testified on his behalf. A human-resources representative
testified on behalf of Transit Team.
In a written decision, the ULJ determined that Beri was discharged for employment
misconduct and aggravated employment misconduct. Accordingly, the ULJ ruled that Beri
was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Beri requested reconsideration of the
ULJ’s decision. The ULJ denied that request and affirmed.
This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
Beri challenges the ULJ’s decision that he is ineligible to receive unemployment
benefits. He asserts that the ULJ erred by (A) determining that he engaged in employment
misconduct, (B) determining that he engaged in aggravated employment misconduct, and
(C) failing to assist him in presenting evidence and to ensure that all relevant facts were
clearly and fully developed. More specifically, Beri contends that the ULJ’s misconduct
determinations lack the support of substantial evidence. And he maintains that the ULJ’s
failure to assist him in presenting all relevant facts and in fully developing the record
resulted in a decision based on incomplete information, given that Transit Team did not
submit complete video footage from within the bus that Beri was driving on the day of the
incident.
5
When reviewing an unemployment-benefits decision, we may affirm or remand the
case for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of
the relator have been prejudiced because, among other things, the decision is unsupported
by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d) (2024). An appellate court determines whether a decision has the support of
substantial evidence by evaluating if there is “(1) such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (2) more than a scintilla of
evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any evidence; or (5) the evidence
considered in its entirety.” Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc. v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency,
644 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Minn. 2002).
“We view the ULJ’ s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision,
giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ, . . . [and] we will not
disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus
v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (citations omitted). “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) (quotation
omitted); see also Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 531–33 (Minn.
App. 2007) (explaining that we defer to the credibility determination made by the ULJ
when it is supported by substantial evidence and provides adequate reasons for the
determination).
An employee who is discharged from employment for employment misconduct or
aggravated employment misconduct is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Minn.
6
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1)–(2) (2024). “Whether an employee engaged in conduct that
disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and
law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
In particular, “[w]hether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.”
Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344. “But whether the act committed by the employee constitutes
employment misconduct is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Id.
Generally, a ULJ “must assist all parties in the presentation of evidence” and
“ensure that all relevant facts are clearly and fully developed.” Minn. R. 3310.2921 (2023).
When a party is self-represented, “the ULJ must help the party to recognize and interpret
the parties’ claims.” Ntamere v. Decisionone Corp., 673 N.W.2d 179, 180 (Minn. App.
2003) (quotation omitted). Appellate courts review a ULJ’s compliance with these
obligations de novo. See City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn.
2008) (“The application of . . . administrative regulations . . . to undisputed facts is a legal
conclusion and is reviewed de novo.”).
Below, we address each of Beri’s arguments in turn.
A. There is substantial evidence of employment misconduct in the record.
“Employment misconduct means 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, su bd. 6(a)
(2024). “An employer has a right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable
instructions and directions.” Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.
App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). And “refusing to abide by an employer’s
7
reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v.
FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). “[W]hat is reasonable will vary
according to the circumstances of each case.” Vargas, 673 N.W.2d at 206 (quotation
omitted).
Here, the ULJ determined that Beri’s failure to secure the client— in violation of
Transit Team’s policies—constituted employment misconduct. The ULJ determined that
Transit Team was “entitled to reasonably expect that its drivers will use a five-point
strap[-]in procedure when transporting clients in wheelchairs” and that they would “stop
in an emergency.” And the ULJ decided that “[t]he preponderance of the evidence”
established that Beri violated these reasonable expectations by neither securing the client
nor responding to the client’s calls for help.
Substantial evidence in the record supports this decision by the ULJ. It is
uncontested that Beri loosened the client’s seatbelt during the drive— a violation of Transit
Team’s policies. The video footage shows that the client began “wobbling” after Beri
loosened his seatbelt. For the next several minutes, the client can be heard yelling, asking
for help, trying to get the driver’s attention, and requesting that Beri stop the bus. Although
the video shows Beri looking in the rearview mirror and turning around, Beri neither stops
the bus nor responds to the client’s cries for help. This evidence, “considered in its
entirety,” supports the ULJ’s decision. Minn. Ctr. for Env’t Advoc., 644 N.W.2d at 464.
Beri maintains that he did not commit employment misconduct because the client
asked him to loosen the seatbelt and he did not hear the client call for help. At the
evidentiary hearing, Transit Team’s human- resources representative stipulated that the
8
client asked Beri to loosen his seatbelt. The client’s request, however, does not make Beri’s
action in loosening the seatbelt any less of an employer-policy violation. And because Beri
does not explain how the client’s request could excuse his failure to abide by Transit
Team’s reasonable policies, see Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804, we decline to consider
such an argument, see In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP, 867 N.W.2d 502, 506 n.2
(Minn. 2015) (declining to consider an argument that was “inadequately briefed”).
As much as Beri’s testimony that he did not hear the client call for help differs from
the video footage, the ULJ gave greater weight to the latter evidence. The ULJ found that
the depiction of the incident in the video footage was more credible than Beri’s description
of what occurred: “Beri’s testimony that he did not hear the client was not credible because
the audio [in the video footage] showed the client was repeatedly yelling and asking for
help.” We defer to this credibility determination by the ULJ, which is supported by
substantial evidence— i.e., the video footage— and for which the ULJ provided an adequate
reason. See Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344; Bangtson, 766 N.W.2d at 332; Ywswf, 726
N.W.2d at 531–33.
In short, the record of the evidentiary hearing establishes that Transit Team
articulated reasonable policies for securing wheelchair-bound clients in the bus and for
ensuring their safe transportation. Beri’s failure to properly secure the client and to respond
to the client’s calls for help was “a serious violation of the standards of behavior” that
Transit Team had a right to reasonably expect from him. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd.
6(a); see also Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804. Because substantial evidence in the record
supports the ULJ’s factual findings and credibility determination, we conclude that the ULJ
9
did not err in deciding that Beri was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits due to his
commission of employment misconduct. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4; Skarhus, 721
N.W.2d at 344.
B. There is substantial evidence of aggravated employment misconduct in
the record.

Aggravated employment misconduct includes “[t]he commission of any act, on the
job or off the job, that would amount to a gross misdemeanor or felony . . . if the act had a
significant adverse effect on the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6a(a) (2024).
“A criminal charge or conviction is not necessary to determine aggravated employment
misconduct” under this section. Id. On top of resulting in ineligibility for unemployment
benefits, a discharge for aggravated employment misconduct requires cancellation of wage
credits from the preceding employment for purposes of an individual ’s benefits account.
Id., subd. 10(c) (2024).
“A caregiver or operator who intentionally neglects a vulnerable adult or knowingly
permits conditions to exist that result in the abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult is guilty
of a gross misdemeanor.” Minn. Stat. § 609.233, subd. 1 (2024). “Abuse” is defined, in
relevant part, as “[c]onduct which is not an accident . . . , which produces or could
reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress . . . .” Minn.
Stat. § 626.5572, subd. 2(b) (2024). “Neglect” includes “a failure to provide a vulnerable
adult with necessary . . . supervision.” Minn. Stat. § 609.233, subd. 1.
The ULJ determined that Beri “intentionally neglected the client” by loosening his
seatbelt and failing to respond to the client’s repeated calls for help. In addition, the ULJ
10
found that, although “[t]he client repeatedly yelled for assistance with the seat belt,” “Beri
kept driving.” And the ULJ determined that “[i]t was reasonably foreseeable for the
loosened belt to slip, threatening the client’s safety,” and that, if Beri had not loosened the
client’s belt, “the incident likely would not have occurred.” Based on these findings, the
ULJ decided that “Beri failed to provide a vulnerable adult with necessary supervision to
ensure the client’ s safety while transporting him,” which amounted to aggravated
employment misconduct.
The ULJ’s decision in that regard is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The video footage itself is substantial evidence of aggravated employment misconduct,
given its depiction of Beri neglecting a vulnerable adult—the client. The video footage
shows that Beri did not properly secure the client’s wheelchair, which led to the client
slipping down against the strap. It captures the client’s repeated yells for help and Beri’s
failure to respond. And it reveals the client’s fall to the floor of t he bus and loss of
consciousness with the belt around his neck. Along with the video footage of the incident,
the record also includes Beri’s admission that he loosened the strap and did not respond to
the client.
On this record and given the ULJ’s credibility determination, there is substantial
evidence that Beri engaged in intentional conduct that “could reasonably be expected to
produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress,” Minn. Stat. § 626.5572, subd. 2(b),
and that he “fail[ed] to provide a vulnerable adult with necessary . . . supervision,” Minn.
Stat. § 609.233, subd. 1. Accordingly, we discern no error in the ULJ’s determination that
11
Beri was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he committed aggravated
employment misconduct.
C. The ULJ adequately assisted Beri in presenting evidence and ensured
that all relevant facts were clearly and fully developed.
Beri asserts that the ULJ lacked access to all the relevant facts before making the
decision underlying this appeal. He contends that the ULJ did not have the entire video
footage from within the bus, which he claims would have shown the client asking Beri to
loosen his seatbelt. And Beri maintains that the video footage the ULJ received omits the
end of the interaction, which he asserts would depict the arrival of the ambulance and the
client declining to go to the hospital. Based on our careful review of the record, we
conclude that the ULJ adequately assisted Beri in presenting all relevant facts and in fully
developing the record.
On the first hearing date, Transit Team’s human-resources representative stated that
she sent Beri a copy of the video footage from within the bus. But Beri said that he did not
receive the whole video. The ULJ continued the hearing to a later date to allow for the
production of the full video.
On the second hearing date, Transit Team submitted 18 minutes of video footage
from within the bus. But the video footage did not include the portion of the incident in
which Beri loosened the client’s seatbelt. Transit Team’s human-resources representative
explained that she tried to download the entire video footage, but “it didn’t work entirely
from the very beginning to the very end.” The human-resources representative therefore
submitted “what [she] could get.” Beri objected to the ULJ receiving the video footage into
12
evidence, arguing that it did not include the entire interaction between Beri and the client.
The ULJ continued the hearing a second time to allow the human-resources representative
another opportunity to locate all of the video footage.
On the third hearing date, the human-resources representative provided video
footage that began when the client was strapped in, with his wheelchair on the bus. Both
the ULJ and Beri stated that they did not receive the full video footage of the incident. The
ULJ then concluded that, while the human-resources representative could not download
and provide video footage of the entire interaction, the parties had provided testimony
about the incident on the bus and the ULJ would “give the appropriate weight to the
evidence that [she did] have.” Thus, the ULJ received the 18 minutes of video footage that
Transit Team had previously offered into evidence. In response to a question by the ULJ,
Transit Team’s human-resources representative agreed to stipulate that the client had asked
Beri to loosen his seatbelt, even though the video footage that Transit Team provided to
the ULJ did not depict the client’s request. The ULJ then concluded that she had “all the
testimony and evidence” needed to decide the matter.
Notwithstanding the omitted portions of the video footage at the beginning and end
of the incident, we discern no prejudice in the ULJ’s decision to receive the 18 minutes of
footage into evidence, particularly given the parties’ factual stipulation that the client had
asked Beri to loosen his seatbelt. The ULJ had twice continued the hearing and had directed
Transit Team’s human-resources representative to download all of the video footage. When
the human-resources representative could not retrieve a complete copy of the video
footage, the ULJ asked the human-resources representative whether Transit Team would
13
stipulate that the client asked Beri to loosen his seatbelt, and Transit Team agreed. Based
on the record before us, we are satisfied that the ULJ attempted to “assist [Beri] in the
presentation of evidence” and ensured that the relevant facts were “clearly and fully
developed.” Minn. R. 3310.2921.
Affirmed.