This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals C4-95-2502 Daniel G. Sommers, Relator, vs. Liberty Carton & Co., Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. Filed May 14, 1996 Affirmed Peterson, Judge Department of Economic Security File No. 606IUC95 Jerome V. Blatz, 191 Valley Office Park, 10800 Lyndale Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55420 (for Relator) Joseph M. Sokolowski, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Parsinen Bowman, Kaplan & Levy, P.A., 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for Respondent) Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent) Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.(*) [Footnote] (*)Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Unpublished Opinion PETERSON, Judge (No lower court judge) Relator Daniel G. Sommers seeks review of the determination that he is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. We affirm. Facts Sommers worked as a fork-lift operator for respondent Liberty Carton & Company (Liberty). During his employment, Sommers had personal difficulties with Chandra Sumsundra, a fellow employee. Liberty had a ``no fighting'' policy, and all employees were informed that fighting would lead to termination. Sommers signed an acknowledgement that he was aware of and understood the no-fighting rule. During their dinner break, Sommers and a coworker, Brian Howell, were sitting at an outdoor picnic table, near the door to the plant. Sumsundra came out and sat on the opposite end of the table. Sommers and Sumsundra exchanged words. The verbal exchange escalated to the point that the two men were wrestling on the ground, clenched together. A supervisor, Mike Olsen, came out of the plant. He and Howell separated the two men. Sommers and Sumsundra were sent home and put on suspension. Later, they were both terminated. One hour after the incident, Howell made a written incident report. He wrote: Chandra took his wallet out of his pocket and said[,] ``Dan look how much [expletive] money I have[.''] At the same moment Dan stood on the picnic table and slapped Chandra's wallet and said[, ``]I don't care about your money.[``] *** Chandra pushed Dan. Dan pushed Chandra back then Chandra went after Dan, Dan in return did a round house (karate kick) kick and hit Chandra in the head[.] I tried to break them up grabbed Chandra, *** Chandra went after Dan again[.] Dan kicked him again in the chest. Once again they started to wrestle around on the ground *** . Howell also testified at the hearing. He stated that Sommers told Sumsundra that he did not want to fight and that he did not want to get fired. Howell testified that Sumsundra was more likely the aggressor because ``he kept persisting [in] going after Dan, after I grabbed him.'' Howell also testified that both men were responsible for the fight and that Sommers could have avoided the incident by simply walking into the building. The reemployment insurance judge found that On June 13, 1995 [Sommers] became involved in a fight with a coworker. [Sommers] took no aggressive actions toward the coworker and was only trying to protect himself. The judge determined that Sommers was involuntarily separated from employment for reasons other than misconduct and was not disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. On appeal, the Commissioner's representative made the following finding of fact: On or about June 13, 1995, [Sommers] and a co-worker got involved in a verbal argument that escalated into a physical altercation. Both parties actively participated in the physical altercation, which took place on company property. [Sommers] had at least one opportunity to walk away from the argument and ensuing fight, but he chose not to do so. The Commissioner's representative concluded that Sommers was discharged for misconduct and was, therefore, disqualified from receiving benefits. Decision I. In an economic security case, the Commissioner's representative may reject the reemployment insurance judge's findings of fact and make new findings; in which case, this court must review the findings of the representative. Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, 51 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Minn. Stat. §§ 268.10, subd. 5 (1992) and 268.12, subd. 13(3) (1992) ). On appeal, [t]he narrow standard of review requires that findings be viewed in the light most favorable to the decision, and if there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain them, they will not be disturbed. White v. Metropolitan Medical Ctr., 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn. 1983). Sommers argues that the Commissioner's representative's finding that he had at least one chance to walk away from the argument and ensuing fight, but he chose not to do so, is not supported by the evidence. We disagree. Brian Howell testified that Sommers could have walked into the building to avoid the fight. Howell's testimony is sufficient to sustain the finding. II. Sommers argues further that, even if he could have retreated to the building, his failure to do so evinces only a lack of judgment, not a wilful or wanton disregard of the employer's interests. Therefore, Sommers concludes, his actions do not constitute misconduct because all of his actions were a result of Sumsundra's actions against him. We disagree. The determination of the commissioner that an employee committed misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. A reviewing court will affirm if the findings of fact ``are not without support in the evidence'' and if ``the conclusion on those facts is not contrary to the statutory mandate.'' Colburn v. Pine Portage Madden Bros., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 159, 161 (Minn. 1984). An individual discharged for ``misconduct'' shall be disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Minn. Stat. 𨵤.09, subd. 1(b) (1994). The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined misconduct as `` * * * conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.'' Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 374-75, 204 N.W.2d 644, 646 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (Wis. 1941) ). A single incident may constitute misconduct if it represents sufficient disregard for the employer's expectations. Blau v. Masters Restaurant Assocs., Inc., 345 N.W.2d 791, 794 (Minn. App. 1984). Disruptive behavior in the workplace constitutes misconduct. Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc., 260 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Minn. 1977); see also Hines v. Sheraton Ritz Hotel, 349 N.W.2d 329, 330 (Minn. App. 1984) (physical fighting constitutes misconduct). Finally, violation of an employer's work rules constitutes misconduct. Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co., 381 N.W.2d 80, 84 (Minn. App. 1986). In Hines, this court held that an employer has a right to expect employees not to fight, concluding that an employee who was not the initial aggressor, who was acting initially in self-defense, but who actively engaged in the continuation of the fight was guilty of misconduct. 349 N.W.2d at 330. Brian Howell testified that Sommers was partially responsible for the fight. He testified that Sommers slapped Sumsundra's wallet out of his hand and kicked Sumsundra on at least one occasion. Howell's written report stated that Sommers pushed and kicked Sumsundra. Additionally, Mike Olsen testified that he saw Sommers, while rolling around on the ground, return punches with Sumsundra. It took both Olsen and Howell to tear the two men apart. Despite Sommers' statements that he did not want to fight and he did not want to lose his job, the evidence supports the finding that Sommers was not exclusively acting in self-defense, but actively fighting. Because fighting on the job is misconduct, Sommers was discharged for misconduct. Therefore, he is disqualified from receiving reemployment insurance benefits. Affirmed.