North Dakota Supreme Court hears appeal over unemployment denial for Harlow School Bus manager

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in case No. 20250003 on an appeal by Christopher Bauer challenging Job Service of North Dakota’s decision to disqualify him from unemployment benefits after an off‑duty incident involving law enforcement and social media attention.

Bauer, appearing pro se, told the court that his off‑duty arrest and later‑discredited criminal charges cannot by themselves constitute disqualifying misconduct under North Dakota law and that the administrative hearing improperly drew adverse inferences from his decision not to testify. “My off duty arrest … cannot itself constitute disqualifying misconduct under North Dakota law,” Bauer said during argument, and he asked the court to reverse the agency and district court rulings and remand for the agency to credit exculpatory evidence including a 37‑minute phone recording.

The case matters because it tests how far an employer and an administrative agency may rely on an off‑duty encounter, social media and a claimant’s silence when deciding whether an employee’s conduct bears a sufficient nexus to workplace interests to trigger disqualification from unemployment benefits. Bauer argued the employer produced no evidence of lost contracts, customer complaints, or operational harm and that relying on an unadjudicated arrest risks denying benefits on allegations that were never proven.

Michael Pitcher, counsel for Job Service of North Dakota, told the court that the scope of review is limited and that administrative findings are presumed correct under North Dakota’s statutory review standard. “Determinations made by an administrative agency are presumed to be correct,” Pitcher said, and he urged the court to defer to the agency’s factual findings absent statutory grounds to overturn them. Pitcher and Job Service emphasized that the agency relied on evidence in the administrative record—including employer testimony and a dispatch record—and that the agency found two independent grounds for disqualification: conduct during the encounter with law enforcement and Bauer’s alleged dishonesty to his employer when asked directly about the incident.

Jesse Walstead, counsel for Harlow School Bus Service, said the record shows an off‑duty incident and a breach of the employee’s duty of candor to the employer. “There was an incident of off duty misconduct,” Walstead told the court, adding that Bauer was the transportation manager, that the company’s vehicle bore the employer’s logo, and that the local school district is the company’s sole contracting customer in the area.

During argument justices pressed parties on evidentiary limits and the record. A justice told Bauer, “We can’t consider things that aren’t in the record,” after Bauer repeatedly referenced an acquittal that the court said did not appear in the administrative record. Bauer responded that the criminal matter was ongoing at the time of the administrative hearing and that some materials he says were submitted were not considered.

The procedural posture is this: Job Service’s appeals referee initially disqualified Bauer from benefits; the district court remanded for consideration of a submitted 37‑minute phone call and later affirmed the agency’s decision; Bauer appealed to the Supreme Court. Counsel for Job Service argued the remand had taken place and that the referee considered the call before the district court again affirmed. Bauer argued the administrative and district proceedings drew impermissible adverse inferences from his silence and failed to credit exculpatory evidence.

At the end of oral argument the court announced it would take the case under advisement. No decision was issued at the hearing.

Copies of the appellate briefs, the district court record and the administrative record remain the governing evidentiary record for this appeal, and the Supreme Court’s eventual opinion will resolve whether the agency’s finding of disqualifying misconduct was supported by the administrative record and consistent with applicable law.