In re the Marriage of: Teresa Marie Nordahl v. Steven Edward Nordahl

Voluntary underemployment/Imputed income/R.C. 3119.01

On certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator argues that the ULJ's decision must be reversed for four reasons: (1) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) relator's conduct falls under certain statutory exceptions to employment misconduct; (3) the ULJ based its determination on a single incident of misconduct; and (4) relator's employer discharged her as a pretext for age discrimination. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ's misconduct determination, relator's conduct does not fall under any of the statutory exceptions relator cites, relator's conduct was a serious violation of her employer's reasonable expectations, and relator failed to raise a claim of age discrimination in proceedings before the ULJ and therefore forfeited the issue. Thus, we affirm.

In this mortgage-foreclosure dispute, the district court granted summary judgment for respondent-bank, permitted foreclosure of appellant's property, reformed the underlying mortgage, and dismissed appellant's counterclaims. On appeal, appellant challenges those determinations. Because the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, permitting foreclosure, and reforming the mortgage, and it did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for relief from final judgment, we affirm.

Relators challenge the licensing order with penalty issued against them by respondent Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (the department), arguing that the commissioner of labor and industry's final order was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. Because the commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and the commissioner did not legally err, we affirm.

Relator Kenneth Kuller challenges a decision affirming his ineligibility for unemployment benefits from respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Kuller advances two arguments on appeal. He asserts first that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) failed to consider new evidence submitted at an evidentiary hearing. He argues second that the record lacks substantial evidence that his conduct violated any workplace policies and constituted employment misconduct. We conclude that the ULJ's decision reflects careful consideration of the relevant evidence and that relator engaged in employment misconduct by violating known and acknowledged employment policies, and we affirm.