may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Leslie B. Kukkonen,
MDI Government Service,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
Filed February 16, 1999
Department of Economic Security
File No. 3771UC98
William E. Maxwell, Legal Aid Service of NE Minnesota, 820 North 9th Street, Olcott Plaza, Suite 150, Virginia, MN 55792 (for relator)
Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Commissioner of Economic Security)
MDI Government Service, c/o R. E. Harrington, Inc., P.O. Box 1160, Columbus, OH 43216-1160 (respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
Relator Leslie B. Kukkonen challenges the determination of the representative of the Commissioner of Economic Security that he was not entitled to reemployment benefits because he was discharged from employment for misconduct. We affirm.
Here, the commissioner's representative disqualified relator from reemployment benefits because the representative found that relator committed misconduct by refusing to take a blood alcohol test. Misconduct is defined as
intentional conduct showing a disregard of:
(1) the employer's interest;
(2) the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect of the employee; or
(3) the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6 (1998). In determining whether there was misconduct, the focal point of the inquiry should be the subjective intent of the person accused of misconduct. Fujan, 535 N.W.2d at 396.
Relator contends that he did not commit misconduct by refusing to take the test because a coworker rather than a supervisor requested that he take the blood alcohol test. We disagree. The commissioner's representative specifically found that relator "refused to take the test because he did not want to take it and not because he felt the request was not from the employer."
Further, the record indicates: (1) relator was aware of respondent's alcohol and drug testing policies; (2) respondent had twice before requested that relator take a blood alcohol test, and twice before relator had failed the tests; (3) both relator's supervisor and the doctor who examined relator smelled alcohol on relator's breath; and (4) on his application for reemployment benefits relator stated he understood he could lose his job for refusing to take the blood alcohol test.
We conclude there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding of the commissioner's representative that relator was not entitled to reemployment benefits.
 This subsection was previously codified at Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 12 (1996).