Heidi Long, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-2028

Heidi Long,
Relator,

vs.

PM Staffing, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 29, 2026
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
File No. 52142391-3

Heidi Long, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (pro se relator)

PM Staffing, Inc., Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ede,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she
was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for the employment
2
misconduct of withholding from her employer information about a criminal charge against
her when she interviewed for her position. We affirm.
FACTS
In May 2024, relator Heidi Long began working for respondent PM Staffing Inc. as
a benefits assistant. About a year later, in the summer of 2025, Long pleaded guilty to a
felony-theft offense that occurred in October 2023. Long was then discharged from her
employment with PM Staffing for failing to disclose that she had a pending financial
criminal charge against her at the time she was hired.
Long applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (the department), and the department issued a
determination of ineligibility stating that Long was not eligible for unemployment benefits
because she had been discharged because of employment misconduct. Long appealed that
determination and a de novo hearing was conducted.
At the hearing, the Director of Operations (director) and a Benefits Manager
(manager), both employees of PM Staffing, testified for the employer. The director
testified that she interviewed Long twice for the position at PM Staffing. The director also
testified that, in “all interviews,” including Long’s interviews, “we go through the same
process,” which included asking Long if there was “anything [in her] criminal history,
pending, past, or present.” According to the director, Long replied “no,” after which the
director informed Long that they “cannot hire anybody with . . . financial crimes,
embezzlement, or identify theft” due to the nature of the PM Staffing’s operations. The
director stated that Long again “[c]onfirmed no,” and they moved on to the next question.
3
The manager, who testified that she was present for the second interview with Long,
confirmed that the questions asked by the director are “routinely” asked in interviews and
were asked in the interview with Long at which the manager was present.
The director testified that Long was hired on May 15, 2024, but that on August 22,
2025, PM Staffing was informed that Long had been “convicted of felony-level theft
greater than $5,000.00 with a party that maintains relations with us in a business capacity.”
The director stated that Long was then discharged for “employment misconduct,
falsification of her application.”
Long admitted that she pleaded guilty in June 2025 for an offense she committed on
October 4, 2023. Long also acknowledged that she was charged with felony theft on May
14, 2024, and that she had her first court appearance related to the criminal case on June
13, 2024. But according to Long, she “did not know about” the charge on the day she was
hired by PM Staffing and claimed she “was kind of coerced into” accepting the plea. And
although Long acknowledged that she never updated PM Staffing with information related
to the pending criminal charge, Long claimed that she “did not think anything of it,” and
believed that it “wasn’t even going to amount to anything.” In fact, Long claimed that she
did not recall being asked about pending criminal charges in her interviews.
Following the hearing, the ULJ found that Long “knew at the time of [her] interview
that she had committed a financial crime,” and that she “knew at the time of the interview
or shortly thereafter that she had been charged with felony theft.” The ULJ also found that,
although Long “knew PM Staffing would not permit her to work there if she had a pending
financial charge,” Long decided to “withhold this information from PM Staffing.” The
4
ULJ determined that Long’s “actions constituted employment misconduct” because her
“actions during and immediately after the hiring process were deceptive and showed a
serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has a right to reasonably expect
of the employee.” The ULJ concluded that Long was ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Long requested reconsideration of the ULJ’s decision. In a written decision, the
ULJ affirmed the decision. This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
Long challenges the ULJ’s decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits
because she was discharged for employment misconduct. “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, subd. 6(a) (2024). An employee who is
discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Id.,
subd. 4(1) (2024).
This court has stated that an employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s
policies, rules, or reasonable requests generally constitutes employment misconduct.
Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, 384 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Minn. App. 1986),
rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986). An employee who misrepresents facts during the hiring
process or on an employment application commits employment misconduct, provided the
misrepresentation is material to the position sought. Santillana v. Cent. Minn. Council on
Aging, 791 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn. App. 2010).
5
Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of
law and fact. Staff v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). On appeal,
this court defers to the ULJ’s credibility determinations and will uphold the ULJ’s findings
of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721
N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gonzalez Diaz v.
Three Rivers Cmty. Action, Inc. , 917 N.W.2d 813, 816 n.4 (Minn. App. 2018) (emphasis
and quotation omitted). But appellate courts 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).
Long argues that employment misconduct “did not occur” because her employer
“was incorrect in their accounts of the interview process and what questions they asked at
the time of [her] hire.” Specifically, Long claims that she was never asked during her
interviews with PM Staffing about her criminal history. And Long asserts that the director
and the manager never “interview[ed her] as a pair” and, “therefore would not know what
each asked.”
Long’s argument is unpersuasive because it challenges the ULJ’s credibility
determinations, and it is well settled that “[c]redibility determinations are the exclusive
province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 345.
Here, the director specifically testified that in “all interviews,” including Long’s
interviews, the employer “go[es] through the same process,” which included asking Long
if there was “anything [in her] criminal history, pending, past, or present.” The director
6
also testified that she specifically informed Long that they “cannot hire anybody with . . .
financial crimes, embezzlement, or identify theft” due to the nature of the PM Staffing’s
operations. And the director testified that Long answered “no” when asked if she had any
“criminal history, pending, past, or present.” Finally, the manager testified that she was
present for the second interview with Long and confirmed that the questions asked by the
director are “routinely” asked in interviews and were asked in her interview with Long.
The ULJ specifically found the PM Staffing’s employees’ testimony to be credible because
“[t]here was nothing about [this] testimony in content or manner of delivery that suggested
inaccuracy or deception.” We defer to that credibility determination. See id.
Long also contends that she did not engage in employment misconduct because she
“did not know [she] even had a pending charge until after [she] started working for PM
Staffing on 05/15/2024 and did not accept the felony conviction on a plea bargain until the
end of June 2025.” But the ULJ found that “Long knew as of the day of her interviews that
she had committed theft,” and “knew” during her interviews “or shortly thereafter that she
was facing a criminal charge . . . that . . . disqualified her from working for PM Staffing.”
And the ULJ found that, despite this knowledge, “Long elected to withhold this
information.” The ULJ’s findings are supported by the testimony of the director and the
manager, as well as aspects of Long’s testimony that the ULJ found to be credible. In light
of the deference afforded the ULJ’s credibility determinations, the ULJ’s finding that Long
engaged in the challenged behavior is supported by substantial evidence. Moreover,
Long’s conduct, as found by the ULJ, seriously vio lated PM Staffing’s reasonable
expectation that Long would tell the truth during the interview process. Therefore, the ULJ
7
did not err in determining that Long’s conduct constituted disqualifying employment
misconduct. See Santillana, 791 N.W.2d at 308 (determining that employee engaged in
disqualifying employment misconduct when the evidence showed that it was unlikely that
the employer would have hired the employee had she disclosed the real reason for her
separation from her former employer).
Affirmed.