 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis5/24/2005
Pro se relator challenges the commissioner's representative's decision that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the decision of the commissioner's representative is reasonably supported by the record, we affirm.
FACTS
Relator Michael Ryan was employed as a gift planner for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis from September 16, 2001, until January 28, 2004. In this capacity, Ryan raised funds, worked with planned gifts from stock donations, and cultivated a set of reliable donors for the archdiocese. He also played a significant role in publishing a quarterly newsletter. Ryan's immediate supervisor was Mickey Nickelson, director of resource development for the archdiocese.
In January 2003, Ryan suffered a back injury while lifting boxes at work. Ryan testified that before the injury he "never heard" complaints about his job performance but that afterwards he "heard nothing but" complaints. In contrast, Nickelson testified that she first began to "have problems" with Ryan's work performance in the summer of 2002 before his back injury. It was at that time that the archdiocese implemented an administrative-review program aimed at "help the employee and the employer communicate . . . goal and incentives." Nickelson explained the deficiencies in Ryan's work performance at the time:
here was no depth to [Ryan's work], it was just a superficial handling of any of his responsibilities and that he had to improve with getting to know the people, documenting it, and then also to ensure that the correspondence that he was responsible for was accurate grammatically and in spelling.
Nickelson orally communicated this feedback to Ryan but did not document it in writing. Thereafter, criticism was offered at weekly staff meetings, but it was not until May 2003 that Nickelson began to meet with Ryan individually. At a June 23, 2003 meeting, Nickelson made it "very clear that [Ryan] was not meeting expectations." At this meeting, Ryan allegedly responded by telling Nickelson that she was "the worst supervisor he ever had" and that he did not want to work for her anymore. Nickelson gave Ryan until September 1 to find a new job and testified that she did not intend to terminate Ryan at that time but rather thought "that he would find another job and leave," given their mutual dissatisfaction. After this confrontation, Nickelson held weekly performance-review meetings with Ryan to discuss his job performance. Ryan believes that these meetings were initiated in order to provide documentation for a future discharge.
On December 2, 2003, Nickelson gave Ryan a final "disciplinary notice" about his job performance. The document set forth Nickelson's expectations and identified a number of deficiencies in Ryan's job performance. Specifically, Nickelson wrote, "Your work has shown you have not met the requirements [for the position] and you have demonstrated your unwillingness to take direction from your supervisor. You have demonstrated your inability to be a good listener, to be precise, detailed and accurate." The letter concluded, "Should you not meet these requirement you will be terminated." Ryan signed the letter but indicated that he did not agree with its contents.
Over the next two months, Nickelson continued to meet with Ryan. She later testified that Ryan's job performance did not improve and that he had "a not[-]care attitude and things just didn't get done." Ryan offered a different perspective:
I think what happened was that [Nickelson] felt that I was taking advantage of the Archdiocese for all expenses
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|