## Facts

- Diane M. McCourtney worked for Imprimis Technology, Inc. as a full-time accounts payable clerk for over 10½ years and had no attendance problems until early 1990.
- After giving birth in late 1989, McCourtney became the primary caregiver for an infant with recurring serious illnesses; the child’s father and other family members could not provide care.
- From January to May 1990, McCourtney had extensive absences attributable almost entirely to caring for the sick infant; the agency found 99.9% of the absences were for that reason and that each absence was excused.
- Imprimis issued written warnings, including a directive that McCourtney develop a written plan to address childcare problems.
- McCourtney investigated alternative childcare (including in-home care and backup day-care) but found reliable, short-notice care for a sick infant was either unavailable or financially impractical.
- After continued absences (including multiple consecutive days and partial-day absences), Imprimis suspended and then discharged McCourtney for excessive absenteeism.
- The Department of Jobs and Training denied unemployment benefits, concluding her absenteeism was “misconduct”; a referee and the Commissioner adopted that conclusion.
- On judicial review, Imprimis moved to strike portions of McCourtney’s appellate brief that relied on extra-record materials and sought sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether persistent, excused absenteeism caused almost entirely by the serious illness of an employee’s infant, despite good-faith efforts to secure alternative care, constitutes “misconduct” disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits.
2. Whether denying benefits on these facts violates equal protection by treating caregiving-related absences differently from absences caused by an employee’s own illness.
3. Whether to strike extra-record material from the appellate brief and whether sanctions should be imposed.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Commissioner’s denial of unemployment benefits, holding McCourtney’s absences did not constitute statutory “misconduct.”
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge under rational-basis review.
- The court granted the employer’s motion to strike extra-record material from McCourtney’s brief but denied sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- “Misconduct” for unemployment disqualification requires a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests, deliberate violation of expected standards, or repeated negligence evidencing culpable intent or substantial disregard of duties.
- An employer’s right to discharge an employee for excessive absenteeism is distinct from whether the discharge is for “misconduct” that forfeits unemployment benefits.
- Extensive absenteeism attributable to compelling, largely uncontrollable caregiving obligations, where absences are excused and the employee makes good-faith efforts to find alternatives, may be insufficient as a matter of law to establish unemployment “misconduct.”
- Appellate review is confined to the administrative record; extra-record materials may be stricken, and sanctions are discretionary.

## Conclusion

McCourtney’s discharge for excessive absenteeism did not bar unemployment benefits because her excused absences stemmed almost entirely from caring for a seriously ill infant and did not show the intentional or culpably negligent disregard required for statutory misconduct; the court nonetheless rejected her equal protection claim and struck extra-record briefing materials without imposing sanctions.


McCourtney v. Imprimis Tech., Inc., 465 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)