Christopher S. Chaudhry, Relator v. Mystic Lake Casino, Department of Employment and Economic Development,...

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-2042

Christopher S. Chaudhry,
Relator,

vs.

Mystic Lake Casino,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 22, 2026
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 51906057-3

Christopher S. Chaudhry, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Greg S. Paulsen, Brodeen & Paulson, PLLP, New Brighton, Minnesota (for respondent
Mystic Lake Casino)

Rebecca Wittmer, Keri A. Phillips, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (for respondent Department)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and

Beane, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SCHMIDT, Judge

Relator Christopher S. Chaudhry challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ)

decision affirming respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic

Development’s (DEED) determination that Chaudhry is ineligible for unemployment

insurance benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm.

FACTS

Chaudhry worked for respondent Mystic Lake Casino. The casino’s policies

“require team members to exercise good judgment,” to behave “in accordance with policies

while on [the casino’s] property and/or attending [casino]-sponsored events outside of

working hours,” and to “always display courteous and professional conduct toward fellow

team members and [the casino’s] guests.” Chaudhry was informed of these policies during

orientation when he first began working for the casino.

While off duty, Chaudhry boarded a parked bus that was shuttling people to the

casino. Another passenger was loudly playing music on their phone speaker. Chaudhry

remarked that the passenger “can’t afford $5.00 headphones but you’re going to the casino.

That makes sense. That makes sense.” The passenger stood up and confronted Chaudhry.

The verbal altercation escalated, with Chaudhry calling the passenger a “punk,” a “bum,”

and a “crackhead bum.” The passenger swiped at and threatened Chaudhry. As the bus

driver entered the bus, the two men continued to argue while explaining what happened to

the bus driver. Chaudhry told the driver that the passenger assaulted him and asked the

driver to call the police. The bus driver told both men to get off the bus.

2

The casino received a complaint about an assault on the bus that day and

investigated the incident. The investigator interviewed Chaudhry twice. The first

interview took place on the same day as the bus incident. During the interview, Chaudhry

stated that “he did not initiate the conversation with the guest,” that “he was assaulted by

the guest when he was still in his seat,” and that “he tried to de-escalate the situation.”

After the first interview, the casino reviewed video footage from the bus incident.

During a second interview, the casino representative did not disclose that they had viewed

the footage of the bus incident and asked Chaudhry to recount his version of events again.

Chaudhry offered the same version of his story as he relayed in his first interview. The

casino discharged Chaudhry for violating its policies.

Chaudhry applied for unemployment insurance benefits. DEED determined that he

was ineligible after having been discharged for misconduct. Chaudhry appealed. A ULJ

held an evidentiary hearing, at which Chaudhry, the casino’s representative, the manager

of investigative operations, and the compliance investigator all testified. The ULJ accepted

several exhibits into evidence, including video from the bus of the incident.

Following the hearing, the ULJ confirmed that Chaudhry was ineligible for

unemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct.

Chaudhry requested reconsideration of the decision. On reconsideration, the Chief ULJ

affirmed the decision that Chaudhry was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits

because he was discharged for employment misconduct.

This appeal by writ of certiorari follows.

3

DECISION

Employees discharged for misconduct are ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (2024). 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 (2024). “[R]efusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable

policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.,

644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002) (citation omitted).

Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies them from

unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.,

796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011). We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most

favorable to the decision. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App.

2006). Whether a particular act “constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law,

which we review de novo.” Id.

Chaudhry argues the ULJ erred when it determined that the casino discharged him

due to employment misconduct because (1) the decision rests on inconsistent testimony;

(2) the ULJ credited the bus footage without adequate context; (3) the ULJ failed to

consider the record as a whole; and (4) the fairness of the proceedings were undermined

when a new ULJ was assigned to his matter. We address each challenge in turn.

4

A. The ULJ considered the testimony of each witness and set out reasons
for crediting certain testimony.

Chaudhry argues the ULJ failed to provide reasons for crediting certain evidence

and that its decision rests on inconsistent testimony. A ULJ “must set out the reason for

crediting or discrediting” testimony when a witness’s credibility has a significant effect on

the outcome of a decision. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a) (2024).

Here, the ULJ’s decision had a section about “credibility” and noted that its findings

were based on witness testimony and the bus video. Where the testimony conflicted, the

ULJ used the bus video as “the most credible evidence[.]” Our review of the record reveals

that the ULJ’s findings are supported by testimony, exhibits, and the security footage from

the bus. We conclude that the ULJ substantiated its credibility determinations as required

by statute and properly resolved conflicting testimony.

B. The ULJ did not improperly credit the video footage.

Chaudhry argues that the ULJ improperly credited the video footage. Chaudhry’s

argument lacks sufficient detail for us to evaluate the issue. And we cannot presume error

on appeal. Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944). Any alleged error

“must be made do appear affirmatively before there can be reversal.” Id. at 465. The

burden of showing error rests upon the party asserting error. Id.

Chaudhry claims that the casino did not submit “the full video.” But neither

Chaudhry’s argument on appeal nor his request for reconsideration articulated what he

believes is missing from the video. As such, we conclude that the ULJ appropriately

considered the video in making its decision.

5

C. The ULJ considered the entire record.

Chaudhry argues that the ULJ failed to consider the record as a whole. We disagree.

Chaudhry’s application for benefits and the circumstances of his discharge were thoroughly

evaluated by the ULJ over the course of three hearings at which four witnesses testified

and several exhibits were received into evidence. The Chief ULJ reviewed Chaudhry’s

request for reconsideration and came to the same conclusion. Chaudhry does not articulate

what he believes the ULJ failed to consider or how that evidence could change the outcome.

We cannot presume error on appeal. Id. at 464-65. Error must be affirmatively shown,

and that burden rests on the one who seeks review. Id. at 465. Chaudhry failed to carry

that burden and we discern no error by the ULJ in our review of the record.

D. Reassignment of the ULJ did not result in unfair proceedings.

Chaudhry argues that reassignment of a new ULJ for his third hearing resulted in

unfair proceedings. Chaudhry does not articulate how having a different ULJ preside over

his final hearing affected the outcome of his case. All ULJs who presided over Chaudhry’s

case had the benefit of reviewing the same exhibits, written statements, and filings.

We conclude that the ULJ did not err in determining that Chaudhry was discharged

for employment misconduct and that Chaudhry was, therefore, ineligible to receive

unemployment insurance benefits.

Affirmed.

6