This opinion will be unpublished and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
Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development,
Filed July 26, 2005
Robert H. Schumacher, Judge
Camp Snoopy, 5000 Center Court, Bloomington, MN 55425 (respondent)
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)
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge
Relator Brian L. Santema challenges the decision of the senior unemployment review judge that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We affirm.
employed by respondent
tenure, Santema had an ongoing conflict with another employee who was under his
supervision. As a result of
confrontations with this subordinate, Santema received written reprimands in
July 2003, August 2003, November 2003, December 2003, and March 2004, warning
him to cease his inappropriate treatment of the other employee and informing
him that continued violations of the policy could lead to further discipline
This court's standard of
review in unemployment benefit cases is very narrow and is limited to
determining whether the evidence reasonably sustains the decision of the senior
unemployment review judge. Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479
N.W.2d 382, 383-84 (
A person discharged from employment because of employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (Supp. 2003). Employment misconduct is "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).
discharged employee has engaged in employment misconduct is a mixed question of
fact and law. Schmidgall v. Filmtec
Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (
The record here
demonstrates that pursuant to the
that he was not entirely to blame for the confrontations leading to the
warnings and discharge because the employee in question was especially
contentious. But the record supports the
finding of the senior unemployment review judge that Santema's behavior
demonstrated a serious violation of the standards of behavior
The senior unemployment review judge did not err in concluding that Santema was terminated for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
 The revisor's office inadvertently substituted the term "ineligible for" for the term "disqualified from" in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (Supp. 2003). See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 1, 4, 7, 8(a) (2002) (using term "disqualified from"); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 11 (making other changes to Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1, but retaining term "disqualified from"); 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 3, art. 2, § 20(j), (k) (directing revisor to change the term "disqualified from" to "ineligible for" only in Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 12, and then to renumber to Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13b).