This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Mamac Systems, Inc.,
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed June 21, 2005
Robert H. Schumacher, Judge
Debra J. Teuchert, 300 Metro Executive Center,
Wayne W. Chapman, 421 East Traveler's Trail,
Eric D. Satre, Connor, Satre & Schaff, LLP, 925 Lumber Exchange
Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, E-200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Commissioner)
Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge; Wright, Judge; and Poritsky, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge
Eam began working for respondent Mamac Systems, Inc. in September 1993; she was discharged from employment on January 9, 2004. The commissioner's representative concluded Eam was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for employment misconduct. The commissioner's representative found the following conduct was the reason for Eam's discharge: when Director of Manufacturing Diane McLean requested that Eam comply with the medical restrictions that she not lift more than ten pounds, Eam responded that she would "lift whatever she pleased"; following McLean's request, Eam complained to a temporary employee, whom Eam supervised, that McLean was a "bitch"; and when Eam's supervisor requested she provide him with shipping labels, Eam called him a "f---ing asshole."
Whether a person is disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits is a mixed question of law and fact. Schmidgall
v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (
Here, the record contains written
statements from Eam's supervisor in which he states, " I went to [Eam] and
asked her to get some labels . . . [she] turned around . . . and said to me 'you f---ing asshole'" and "[Eam] also told the temp [employee]
that [McLean] asked her to do many things at the same time and called [McLean]
a bitch." Further,
We next turn to whether these
acts constitute employment misconduct. Employment misconduct is defined as "any
intentional, negligent or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1)
that evinces a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has
the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that demonstrates a
substantial lack of concern for the employment." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp.
2003). An employee who responds to his
or her employer's reasonable request with profanity, or refuses to follow the
request, has committed employment misconduct.
See, e.g. Soussi v. Blue &
White Serv. Corp., 498 N.W.2d 316, 318 (
Eam argues that her conduct is
not employment misconduct because it should be considered a single incident
that did not have a significant adverse impact on Mamac. See
* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.