## Facts

- Michael Peterson worked for Fred Vogt & Company as a heating and air-conditioning technician who drove a company vehicle; the job required a valid driver’s license.
- From July 1989 through March 1990, Peterson received five speeding tickets while off duty and driving his own car.
- Vogt issued a written warning stating Peterson’s driving record could jeopardize Vogt’s insurance and might require taking away the company service vehicle, while suggesting Peterson might still work using his own vehicle with proof of insurance.
- Peterson received two additional off-duty speeding tickets in October 1990 and August 1991 (seven total).
- In September 1991, the Department of Public Safety notified Peterson his license would be suspended for 90 days, but that he was eligible for a limited work license.
- Peterson asked Vogt’s president to sign a statement supporting the limited-license application; the president refused and discharged him before any suspension took effect.
- Peterson sought unemployment benefits; two referees found no disqualifying misconduct, but a Commissioner’s representative reversed and found misconduct.
- Peterson sought review by writ of certiorari to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated off-duty speeding violations and the anticipated temporary loss of driving privileges constitute “misconduct” that disqualifies an employee from unemployment benefits under Minnesota law.

## Decision

- The court reversed the Commissioner’s representative and held Peterson was not disqualified from unemployment benefits.
- The court concluded Peterson’s off-duty speeding violations did not show the willful or wanton disregard required for misconduct.
- The court found the employer’s claimed insurance risk was speculative because there was no evidence of actual cancellation, premium increases, or insurer action attributable to Peterson.
- The court relied on undisputed evidence that Peterson could have continued working with a limited work license, which the employer refused to support.
- The court applied independent legal judgment to the ultimate misconduct determination, while recognizing deference to supported fact findings.

## Legal Principles

- For unemployment purposes, “misconduct” requires willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests, deliberate violations of expected standards of behavior, or recurrent negligence showing substantial disregard for the employment relationship.
- Inefficiency, inability, inadvertence, isolated ordinary negligence, or good-faith errors in judgment do not constitute disqualifying misconduct.
- Off-duty conduct is not disqualifying misconduct absent a clear and substantial connection to the employer’s interests or the employee’s ability to perform essential job duties.
- Whether established facts amount to “misconduct” is a question of law reviewed independently on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that Peterson’s off-duty speeding history and the anticipated license suspension did not constitute unemployment misconduct because the record showed no on-the-job performance problem, no proven employer harm, and a workable path to continued employment through a limited work license that the employer declined to support.


Peterson v. Fred Vogt & Co., 495 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)