Michael DePaul, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0503

Michael DePaul,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 22, 2021
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 37685174-4

Michael DePaul, Eagan, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration, Fort Snelling, Minnesota
(respondent employer)

Anne B. Froelich, Keri A. Phillips, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Worke, Pres iding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is
ineligible for unemployment be nefits because he quit his employment without a good
reason caused by his employer. We affirm.
FACTS
In November 2019, respondent Depart ment of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) sent rela tor Michael DePaul a determ ination of ineligibility for
unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a good reason caused by
respondent-employer Department of Veterans Affairs/Veterans Health Administration.
DePaul appealed, and a ULJ held a telephone hearing.
DePaul testified that he began employme nt in August 2017 and quit his security-
officer position in October 2019. DePaul claimed that he encountered harassment and three
incidents made work “intolerable.” The first incident occurred in early 2019 when DePaul
was investigated for allegedly threatening a coworker. DePaul stated that he was cleared
of wrongdoing, but another coworker spread rumors that DePaul did threaten his coworker,
and as a result, people did not want to work with him and he did not get a job that he applied
for.
The second incident occurre d in August 2019 when De Paul attempted to help
coworkers come forward with complaints against another o fficer. The union president
tried to intimidate DePaul by leaning over him and loudly stating, “none of the officers like
you and none of them want to work with you.”

3
The third incident occurred in September 2019 when DePaul wa s investigated for
making threatening statements to the supervisor of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).
DePaul told the investigator that he had me t with the EEO supervisor and expressed that
he wanted out of the department because he could not “take this anymore” and was “angry
as can be.” According to De Paul, he also told the EEO su pervisor that she did not do
anything for veterans, which he is, and should be ashamed of herself. DePaul claimed that
the investigator cleared him. But the next day, DePaul’s supervis or, Lieutenant Sutter,
called DePaul and left him with the impressi on that he was still under investigation and
told him that he needed to talk to Chief Weber, Lieutenant Sutter’s supervisor.
DePaul stated that he called Chief Weber and asked about the investigation. Chief
Weber directed DePaul to report to work and di scuss it in person. DePaul stated that he
did not “feel comfortable doing that.” Because DePaul refused to return to work without
knowing what the investigation was about, and Chief Weber declined to discuss the matter
over the phone, DePaul never returned to work.
The ULJ asked DePaul if he attempted to have a third party join him during a
meeting with Chief Weber. DePaul responded that he could not get a union official because
of the incident that occurred with the union president in August, he did not trust Lieutenant
Sutter, and when he reached out to human resources, he was told, “I’ll pass this information
along to Chief Weber.” The ULJ asked DePa ul why he feared Chief Weber. DePaul
responded that Chief Weber has “done some dirty things” and he “could not chance going
in” to speak to her because she could have “arrested [him] on the spot,” although she had
no reason to arrest him because he has a “perfect work record, flawless.”

4
The ULJ decided that DePaul was inelig ible for unemployment benefits because
there was no showing that his work environmen t was so adverse as to cause the average,
reasonable worker to quit and become unempl oyed rather than remain in employment.
DePaul requested reconsideration, but the ULJ affirmed the decision. DePaul then filed a
petition for writ of certiorari appealing the ULJ’s decision.
DECISION
DePaul challenges the ULJ’s decision th at he quit employme nt without a good
reason caused by his employer. On review, this court may “reverse or modify the [ULJ’s]
decision if the substantial rights of the [rela tor] may have been prejudiced because the
findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision” violate constitutional provisions, exceed the
department’s statutory authority, were made after an unlawful procedure, are based on an
error of law, are unsupported by the record evidence, or are arbitrary or capricious. Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2020).
This court reviews the ULJ’s factual findi ngs in the light most favorable to the
decision and will not disturb those findings when the evidence substantially supports them.
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). “Credibility
determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Id. at 345. But “[t]he determ ination that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment
benefits based on the facts of the case is reviewed de novo.” Posey v. Securitas Sec. Servs.
USA, Inc., 879 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn. App. 2016).
Generally, an employee who quits employ ment is ineligible for unemployment
benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095 , subd. 1 (2020). But an empl oyee is eligible for benefits

5
if he quit because of a good reason caused by the employer. Id., subd. 1(1). A good reason
caused by the employer is a reason “(1) that is directly related to the employment and for
which the employer is responsible; (2) that is adverse to the worker; and (3) that would
compel an average, reasona ble worker to quit and beco me unemployed rather than
remaining in the employment.” Id., subd. 3 (2020).
Here, the ULJ determined that DePaul’s reason for quitting—an unpleasant work
environment—was related to the employment, but was not so adverse as to cause the
average, reasonable worker to quit and beco me unemployed rather than remaining in
employment.
The ULJ determined that the first incide nt concerning the rumors amounted to a
personality conflict with a coworker. DePaul argues that this characterization minimizes
the situation. But DePaul te stified that the person circul ating the rumors was just a
coworker and all she did was spread rumors. Whether an employee’s issue constitutes a
good reason to quit 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). And conflicts with coworkers,
including a personality conflic t, do not, without more, c onstitute a good reason to quit
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 persona lity conflict did not constitute good reason
to quit); Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas , 397 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that
“irreconcilable differences” with coworkers did not constitute good reason to quit).

6
The ULJ similarly determined that, in the second incident, the union president made
an inappropriate statement, but DePaul failed to show that the union president “was against
[him] or would not assist him.” Undoubtedl y hearing that coworkers do not like you is
unpleasant, especially if delivered in the way DePaul described, but it does not constitute
a good reason to quit cau sed by the employer. This, agai n, is a personality conflict that
may have provided DePaul a good personal reason to quit, but a good personal reason does
not necessarily demonstrate a goo d reason caused by the employer. See Werner v. Med.
Prof’ls LLC, 782 N.W.2d 840, 84 2 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Aug. 10,
2010).
Lastly, regarding the third in cident that involved the investigation into the EEO
supervisor’s report, the ULJ fo und that the EEO supervisor “may have felt nervous as a
result of [DePaul’s] conduct” because he told her that he was “angry as can be,” and that
she should be “ashamed” of herself. The UL J determined that the EEO supervisor had a
right to report her concerns, and the employer had an obligation to investigate.
DePaul testified that he had been cleared, but based on Chief Weber’s involvement,
DePaul may not have been cleared. And instead of cooperating, DePaul refused to return
to work and meet with Chief Weber. If, as DePaul asserted, he had no reason to be
“arrested on the spot,” it seems an irrational fe ar to refuse to comply with a supervisor’s
request to report to work and discuss a matter. DePaul argues that Chief Weber opened a
new investigation after he was cleared becaus e she was friends with the EEO supervisor.
But there is no evidence supporting this claim, and even if this claim is accurate, it may be
Chief Weber’s responsibility to follow up on investigations.

7
Finally, the ULJ found that parts of De Paul’s testimony were “unlikely and
farfetched.” For example, it was not believable that DePaul would be arrested on the spot
if he met with Chief Weber. DePaul argues that his allegations are not “farfetched” because
the federal government is inve stigating and “[t]hey seem to feel” that DePaul was in “a
hostile work environment.” But this court defe rs to the ULJ’s credibility determinations.
See Skarhus , 721 N.W.2d at 344. And an eligibility-for-unemployment-benefits
determination is a different situation than a federal investigation into a hostile work
environment. Substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s finding that DePaul quit his
employment without a good r eason caused by his employer and was ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.