Granville Butler, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1061

Granville Butler,
Relator,

vs.

Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 12, 2018
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35447306-3

Granville Butler, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an une mployment-law judge (ULJ) that he is
ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged from his employment for
misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
In July 2014, relator Granville Butler began working for respondent Primeflight
Aviation Services, Inc. Primeflight has a policy prohibiting “[o]bscene or abusive language
. . . while on the job.” In Fe bruary 2017, Primeflight terminated Butler’s employment for
violating this policy. According to the “C orrective Action Notice,” operations manager,
J.G., instructed Butler on Febr uary 21, 2017, “to take his lunch break at 14:34 in
preparation for the busy time of the operation which is usually between 1500-1800 daily.”
When J.G. later asked Butler if had had gone to lunch, Butle r replied: “No I did not hear
you.” After explaining to Butler that he had called him three times on the radio to tell him
to go to lunch, J.G. instructed Butler to “clock out” due to his failure to follow directions.
Butler told J.G., “You’re a f--king a--hole, and walked away.”
Following his discharge from employment with Primeflight, Butler established a
benefits account with respon dent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED), and DEED determined that Butler is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. Butler appealed the
determination and a ULJ conducted a de novo hearing. At the hearing, Butler claimed that
he never heard J.G. tell him to go to lunch and denied calling J.G. a “f--king a--hole.”

3
Butler claimed that he was on the phone, e xplaining the situation to a person who was
bringing him lunch, when he characterized the situation as “some a--hole sh-t.”
The ULJ found that Butler’s testimony “was not credible.” Noting that an “employer
has the right to reasonably expect an employee to refrain from telling a supervisor that [he]
is a ‘f--king a--hole’” in response to supervis ory instruction at work, the ULJ determined
that Butler’s comments constituted employment misconduct because they were intentional
and “demonstrated clearly a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” The ULJ
therefore decided that Butler is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Butler subsequently
requested reconsideration, and a different ULJ affirmed.
This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
This court may reverse the decision of a ULJ “if the substantial rights of the
petitioner may have been prejud iced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or
decision are . . . unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as
submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5) (2016). Whether an employee committed
employment misconduct is a mixe d question of law and fact. Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr.,
Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016).
Whether an employee committed a partic ular act is an issue of fact. Skarhus v.
Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). We review factual findings “in
the light most favorable to the decision,” and will not disturb them “a s long as there is
evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Wilson, 888 N.W.2d at 460

4
(quotations omitted). But whether a particular act constitutes employment misconduct is a
legal question that is reviewed de novo. Id.
An employee who is discharged for em ployment misconduct is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268. 095, subd. 4(1) (2016). “Employment
misconduct means any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the
job that displays clearly: (1) a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer
has the right to reasonably expect of the employee; or (2) a substantial lack of concern for
the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 2 68.095, subd. 6(a) (Supp. 2017). “As a general rule,
refusing to abide by an employer’s reas onable policies and requests amounts to
disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn.
2002).
Butler challenges the ULJ’s decision that he engaged in employment misconduct,
arguing that he “did not call [J.G.] a f--king a--hole.” But it is well settled that “[c]redibility
determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 345. At the hearing, evidence was presented that Butler called his
supervisor a “f--king a--hole” in response to his supervisor telling him to clock out and go
home. The supervisor gave him that instruction after Butler failed to follow the instruction
to take lunch at the appropriate time. If believed, this evidence establishes that Primeflight
discharged Butler for insubordination and vi olating its policy prohi biting “[o]bscene or
abusive language . . . on the job.”
Although Butler testified that he did not ca ll his supervisor a “f--king a--hole,” the
ULJ specifically found Butler’s testimony to be less credible than Primeflight’s general

5
manager’s testimony “because it was, at times, unreasonable and illogical,” and
inconsistent with a written statement that Bu tler provided to Prim eflight following the
incident in which he “did not include anyt hing about being on the telephone” when he
purportedly told the friend that the situation was some “a--hole sh-t.” Because we defer to
the ULJ’s credibility determinat ions, the ULJ did not clearl y err by finding that Butler
called his supervisor a “f--king a--hole. ” And because Butler’s conduct constitutes
employment misconduct, the ULJ properly de termined that Butler is ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.