Brittany Selander, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0299

Brittany Selander,
Relator,

vs.

Osseo School District,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed December 3, 2018
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35928264

Brittany Selander, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Osseo School District, Maple Grove, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman , Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Relator Brittany Selander appeals the decision of an unemploym ent-law judge
(ULJ) determining that relator i s ineligible for unemployment b enefits because she was
discharged for employment misconduct. Because the record suppo rts the ULJ’s decision
that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, we affirm.
FACTS
Relator began working at a before-and-after-school program ope rated by respondent
Osseo School District in August 2014. Relator was discharged o n October 2, 2017, and
she applied for unemployment benefits. The Minnesota Departmen t of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) made an initial determination that relator was eligible for
unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for reaso n s o t h e r t h a n
employment misconduct. The district appealed, and the parties had a telephonic hearing
with a ULJ. The ULJ determined that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits
because she had been discharged from her employment for miscond u c t . T h e
unemployment benefits previously paid to relator are considered overpaid benefits,
requiring repayment under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 3a(b) (2 016). Relator requested
reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the earlier decision.
At the hearing before the ULJ, the district presented the test imony of Janet Bouyer,
i t s H u m a n R e s o u r c e s D i r e c t o r . B o u y e r s t a t e d t h a t r e l a t o r w a s discharged because of
continuing violations of district policy, refusing to follow di rectives, and attempting to
influence the outcome of an investigation through coercion. Specifically, Bouyer testified

3
that relator violated policies requiring employees to be suppor tive and respectful to
coworkers. There is another policy requiring employees to be a role model to the children
and to carefully choose words, tone, and volume. Relator received a directive in December
2015 about how to communicate appropriately with her colleagues, and relator was asked
to write down questions and con cerns in a staff notebook to avo id conflicts with other
employees and possible arguments in front of students. Bouyer claims that relator was
reminded to use the notebook and communicate respectfully to coworkers after a conflict
in December 2015, and after another conflict in February 2016.
In the summer of 2017, relator’s coworkers complained to Bouye r about relator’s
behavior. The coworkers did not want to work with relator. Th ey described her as rude,
disrespectful, condescending, and unprofessional. One employee told Bouyer that he
would not go back to relator’s worksite because of his negative interaction with her. On
August 10, 2017, Bouyer gave relator a notice of deficiency. T his notice directed relator
to (among other things) build a nd maintain positive relationships, cease raising her voice
at staff members, and refrain from instigating or participating in negative, provocative, or
argumentative communication in front of youth.
Sometime around August 31, 3017, relator was present at a staff meeting conducted
by Y.Y., a supervisor/lead instructor. Y.Y. later complained to relator’s supervisor, D.L.,
that relator had been challenging and disrespectful. D.L. told Bouyer, who asked D.L. to
take statements from staff who were at the meeting. Bouyer determined that relator had in
fact been challenging and disrespe ctful during the meeting. In a meeting with relator on
September 14, 2017, Bouyer gave relator a supplemental notice o f deficiency and

4
suspended her because of her behavior at the meeting with Y.Y. Bouyer instructed relator
that she was not to engage in retaliation. Relator had a different version of what happened
at the meeting with Y.Y. and wanted to talk to Bouyer about other employees trying to get
h e r i n t r o u b l e . B o u y e r s c h e d u l e d a m e e t i n g t o d i s c u s s r e l a t o r ’s concerns, but relator
canceled the meeting.
After the September 14 meeting, relator called Bouyer to bring up various
complaints about Y.Y. not acting professionally toward her over the last year. Bouyer told
relator that, if she wanted to file a separate complaint about Y.Y., she would need to have
a separate meeting with Bouyer to provide information, and then Bouyer would look into
it. Bouyer scheduled a meeting for the following week.
Before meeting with Bouyer, rela tor made multiple phone calls t o one coworker’s
home number and sent multiple tex t messages to another coworker , asking them to
complain to Bouyer about Y.Y., but neither coworker wanted to d o so. One of the
coworkers provided the text messages to Bouyer. Bouyer testified that relator claimed not
to recall sending the texts or making the phone calls. Bouyer also testified that the
coworker who received the texts felt like relator was bullying him. Relator was discharged
by the district. Based on this evidence, the ULJ determined that relator was discharged for
employment misconduct. This certiorari appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Relator argues that the ULJ erred by determining that she is in eligible for
unemployment benefits. We review a ULJ’s decision denying bene fits to determine
whether the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decision are affected by an error of law,

5
are unsupported by substantial ev idence in view of the entire r ecord, or are arbitrary or
capricious. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2017). The ULJ’s factual findings
are viewed in the light most favorable to the decision being reviewed, and we defer to the
ULJ’s credibility determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn.
App. 2006). Whether an employee’s conduct “disqualifies the em ployee from
unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law which appellate courts review
de novo.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation
omitted).
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to workers who
have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Id. (quotation
omitted). Accordingly, a worker who was discharged due to “employment misconduct” is
ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, s ubd. 4 (2016); Stagg, 796
N.W.2d at 315-16.
“Employment misconduct” means a ny 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. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2016). This statutory defin ition is exclusive such that
“no other definition applies.” Id., subd. 6(e); see also Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888
N.W.2d 452, 458-60 (Minn. 2016).
The ULJ found that relator’s actions displayed a serious violat ion of the standards
of behavior that the district ha d a right to reasonably expect of her. The ULJ found that

6
the district had a right to reasonably expect that relator not engage in retaliation or other
actions that would create unrest and disruption among her coworkers, negatively affecting
the workplace. The ULJ found that relator disrupted the workplace by pestering coworkers
to make complaints about Y.Y. in retaliation for thinking Y.Y. had made a complaint about
relator that resulted in relato r’s suspension. To the extent t hat testimony at the hearing
conflicted, the ULJ expressly found Bouyer’s testimony to be more credible.
Relator argues that she neither retaliated against Y.Y. for co mplaining about her nor
tried to “coerce” coworkers into complaining about Y.Y. as Bouy e r c l a i m e d . B e c a u s e
coercion involves force or threats, relator contends that her a ctions did not amount to
coercion. We agree, and the ULJ agreed as well. Relator did n ot coerce anyone by force
or threats, and the ULJ so found. We also agree with relator t hat she did not engage in
“retaliation” as that term is def ined in the district’s employee policies. Relator may have
had some valid concerns about how some coworkers had treated he r. But the ULJ found
that relator pestered coworkers to complain about Y.Y. and that this conduct was
disruptive. The record supports that finding.
Relator was not discharged, or retaliated against, for making a valid complaint
against a coworker as she contends. The record supports the ULJ’s finding that the district
provided relator with an appropriate and nondisruptive mechanis m to make complaints
against Y.Y., but relator chose to take another route in disreg ard of the district’s
instructions. Relator’s acti ons constitute employment miscondu ct because her employer
could reasonably expect that relator would follow instructions for making complaints, and
the district informed relator about this expectation, in additi on to instructing her to keep

7
the matter confidential. See Nieszner v. Minn. Dep’t of Jobs & Training, 499 N.W.2d 832,
838 (Minn. App. 1993) (“A single incident may constitute miscon duct if the employee
sufficiently disregards his or her employer’s expectations.”). Having carefully considered
each of relator’s arguments, we conclude that the ULJ did not e rr by determining that
relator was discharged for employment misconduct and, accordingly, that she is ineligible
for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.