Chung v. SMSC Gaming Enterprises
Minnesota Court of Appeals
2007 WL 3537 (2007)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
On September 23, 2004, Michael Chung (plaintiff) began working for SMSC Gaming Enterprises (SMSC) (defendant) as a player-services representative at a casino. This position required him to hold a valid gaming license from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Gaming Commission (the commission), an entity unrelated to SMSC. The license condition was set forth and disclosed to Chung in his employment application. On February 8, 2005, Chung was issued a ticket for careless driving and making an improper lane change. Based on this conduct, in September, the commission held a hearing and voted unanimously to revoke Chung’s license. Subsequently, on October 5, SMSC terminated Chung’s employment because he no longer held a gaming license. Chung then sought unemployment benefits. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) held that Chung was disqualified from unemployment benefits, finding that SMSC had the right to reasonably expect that Chung would avoid engaging in behavior that would result in the revocation of his gaming license. A second ULJ affirmed the decision, finding that Chung knew he was required to maintain a gaming license as a condition of employment, and he had failed to do so. Chung appealed the second ULJ’s decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, where he made three arguments. First, Chung argued that the decision was factually and legally incorrect because the second ULJ’s decision was based on the false assumption that Chung’s driver’s license was revoked. Second, Chung argued that his gaming license was improperly revoked. Third, Chung argued that the careless-driving conviction did not constitute employment misconduct. In response to the last argument, SMSC argued that Chung displayed a serious violation of the standards of behavior that SMSC was entitled to expect and that his conduct raised a substantial concern for his employment, given the need to maintain a gaming license.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Willis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.