Morgan Allen Godfrey, Jehl & Godfrey, P.L.L.P., 201 Silver Lake Road N.W., Suite D, New Brighton, MN 55112 (for Respondent ASP)

Kent E. Todd, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent Commissioner)

Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Mulally, Judge.[*]

Relator Judy L. Glass filed a claim for reemployment insurance benefits after she was discharged by her employer, respondent A.S.P. of Moorhead, Incorporated (A.S.P.). She obtained a writ of certiorari and seeks review of a decision by the Commissioner's representative disqualifying her from receiving benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(b) (1994). Because the Commissioner's findings are reasonably supported by the record and support the conclusion that Glass was discharged for misconduct, we affirm.

Glass was employed by A.S.P. as a security guard and assigned to guard a factory owned by Frigidaire. The Commissioner found that Frigidaire employees could enter the factory at either of two pedestrian gates and that Glass arbitrarily denied an employee access at one gate by placing "both her hands on the employee's shoulders." The Commissioner further found that A.S.P. previously had warned Glass that truck drivers had complained about her crabby, sarcastic, and harassing behavior. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commissioner's decision and accepting the Commissioner's credibility determination of the witnesses, these findings are reasonably supported by the record. See Jeanne Thorne Temp. Serv., Inc. v. Elliot, 351 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Minn. App. 1984); Cary v. Custom Coach, Inc., 349 N.W.2d 331, 332 (Minn. App. 1984).

Further, these findings support the Commissioner's conclusion that Glass was discharged for misconduct. An employer has a right to expect an employee to abide by reasonable policies and procedures. See Ress, 448 N.W.2d at 525; McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 1988); Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn. App. 1985). An act of physical violence or confrontation constitutes misconduct unless it is an isolated "hot-headed incident" that does not interfere with the employer's business. See Shell v. Host Int'l Corp., 513 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Minn. App. 1994); Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp., 490 N.W.2d 672, 675 (Minn. App. 1992). Previous warnings regarding an employee's conduct also may evince sufficient disregard for an employer's interests and constitute misconduct under the "last straw" doctrine. See Barstow v. Honeywell, Inc., 396 N.W.2d 714, 716 (Minn. App. 1986). Thus, the Commissioner did not err in concluding that the incident involving the Frigidaire employee, coupled with Glass's previous behavior, constituted misconduct because it evidenced a lack of concern for her job and an utter disregard for her employer's interests.

Finally, A.S.P. has moved to strike portions of Glass's brief as not part of the record. However, the challenged portions of Glass's brief are either statements of fact that could be inferred from the record or statements of Glass's personal opinion. We therefore deny A.S.P.'s motion to strike.

Affirmed and motion to strike denied.

[ ]^* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.