Bernice Giernot, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0931

Bernice Giernot,
Relator,

vs.

Lake Aire Bottle Shoppe,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 4, 2019
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 36284859-3

Bernice Giernot, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lake Aire Bottle Shoppe, Duluth, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Florey, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment -law judge (ULJ) that she is
ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that she quit employment for a good reason
caused by her employer. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Bernice Giernot worked as the bookkeeper for respondent Lake Aire Bottle
Shoppe, a liquor store, since 2001. The store hired a new general manager in 2015, and
Giernot and the manager experienced conflict.
In August 2015, Giernot discovered that the manager interrupted remote software
work on a computer by printing a sign. When she told him she believed this was rude, he
responded that she was rude and that employees at the store’s bank told him she was rude.
Giernot complained to the store’s owner about the comment. In 2016, the man ager told
his assistant manager that he did not trust Giernot’s financial statements. Another time, he
commented to the assistant manager that Giernot was “snooping through” his desk. In
2017, the manager approached Giernot’s desk to talk to her and, whe n she continued to
look at her computer and work, told her to look at him while they were talking. The
manager also told Giernot not to use a shared work computer for personal matters; she felt
singled out because others had been allowed to do so.
Giernot generally felt that the manager was disrespectful toward her and tried to
“make [her] life more difficult.” If Giernot did not respond when the manager wished her
a good morning, he would repeat the greeting and ask if she heard him, which she felt

3
treated her “like a child.” Giernot asked the manager to write down the store’s specials
and deals so she could update prices in the computer, and when he failed to do so she had
to ask him or a salesperson for the information. And the manager occasionally made
computer-entry and inventory mistakes, which Giernot believed were at least partially
intentional.
In October 2017, Giernot complained to human resources about the manager. She
identified three concerns: (1) she believed the manager was improperly selling wine to a
restaurant, (2) the manager erred when entering costs into the computer, and (3) the
manager prohibited her from performing personal tasks on a shared computer even though
others were permitted to do so. The store owner met with them both and reassigned the
task of entering costs to G iernot, which she accepted. The owner also instructed the
manager to “be extra careful of the tone of his voice when talking to [Giernot].” But
Giernot felt that these steps did not sufficiently hold the manager accountable.
On February 6, 2018, the manager told Giernot that she had not entered an item in
the computer, even though she had. And later that day, he asked her to record each time
she enters a new item in the computer or changes a price. She did not respond, and he
asked if she had heard him. She told him she had, and then quit.
Giernot applied for unemployment benefits. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that she is ineligible
because she quit her employment. Giernot appealed.
A ULJ conducted a de novo evidentiary hearing, receiving testimony from Giernot
and the manager. The ULJ found the manager’s testimony more credible than Giernot’s,

4
expressly crediting the manager’s testimony that he made no improper sales or intentional
errors. And the ULJ determined that “[w]hile Giernot may have been frustrated with [the
manager], an average, reasonable employee would not quit without obtaining alternate
employment first.” Giernot requeste d reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed. Giernot
appeals by writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
A person who quits employment is ineligible for unemployment benefits unless an
enumerated statutory exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2018). One such
exception is when a person quit “because of a good reason caused by the employer .” Id.,
subd. 1(1). A good reason is an adverse circumstance “directly related to the employment
and for which the employer is responsible ” that “would compel an a verage, reasonable
worker to quit and become unemployed rather than remaining in the employment. ” Id.,
subd. 3(a) (2018).
We will not disturb a ULJ’s decision that an employee quit without a good reason
unless the decision is based on legal, factual, or p rocedural error that prejudiced a party’s
substantial rights. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2018). We view a ULJ’s factual
findings regarding an employee’s circumstances in the light most favorable to the decision
and defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Wiley v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. , 834
N.W.2d 567, 569 (Minn. App. 2013) . Whether established facts constitute a good reason
attributable to the employer is a question of law, which we review de novo. Rowan v.
Dream It, Inc., 812 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. App. 2012).

5
Giernot challenges the determination that she did not have a good reason to quit.
She argues the manager “made [her] job difficult by the way he treated [her] as well as not
providing [her] with the information to [her] that was his responsibility,” and did not alter
his treatment of her after she complained, leaving her “no choice but to quit.” This
argument is unavailing.
Whether an employee’s concerns constitute a good reason to leave employment is
judged by “the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and
not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’ g & Mfg., Inc. , 720 N.W.2d 590, 597
(Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, an employee’s conflicts with others
at work, including a personality conflict with a supervisor, do not, without more, constitute
a good reason for quitting caused by the employer. Trego v. Hennepin Cty. Fam. Day Care
Ass’n, 409 N.W.2d 23, 23-24 (Minn. App. 1987) (stating that “personality conflict” did not
constitute good cause to quit); Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas, 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn. App.
1986) (stating that “irreconcilable differences with others at work” did not constitute good
cause to quit) ; see also Werner v. Med. Prof ’ls LLC, 782 N.W.2d 840, 842 (Minn. App.
2010) (stating that a good personal reason to quit does not necessarily establish good
cause).
The largely undisputed factual record amply demonstrates that Giernot had a
protracted personality conflict with the manager. These circumstances bothered Giernot
and may have been a good personal reason for her to quit. But we are not persuaded that
Giernot’s circumstances would lead the average, reasonable worker to quit without first

6
securing new employment. Accordingly, the ULJ did not err by concluding that Giernot
quit without good cause and is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.