Dantzler Thomas, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-0851

Dantzler Thomas,
Relator,

vs.

Thermotech LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed May 10, 2021
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 37700989-3

Dantzler Thomas, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Thermotech L.L.C., Hopkins, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Rebecca A. Wittmer, Anne B. Froelich, Mi nnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Pres iding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Dantzler Thomas was fired from his jo b because he repeatedly harassed a co-
worker. He applied for unemployment bene fits. The department of employment and

2
economic development determined that he is ineligible b ecause he was discharged for
employment misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Thermotech L.L.C. is engaged in the business of custom precision injection
molding. In May 2017, Ther motech hired Thomas to work as a machine operator. In
August 2019, Thomas’s supervisor received a report that Thomas had harassed a female
co-worker. The co-worker reported that Thomas said things to her such as “I will get you,”
“no woman can reject me,” “I have a dick that everyone wants,” “you are nobody until I
am done with you,” “your man will never know what I will do to you until I get my hands
on you,” and “you know you want this” as he gestured toward his genitals. The co-worker
said that Thomas had engaged in such hara ssment on almost a daily basis. Thomas’s
supervisor met with Thomas, explained th e company’s expectations for appropriate
workplace behavior, and inform ed him that harassment would not be tolerated. In
September 2019, the co-worker again report ed that Thomas was making inappropriate
comments to her. Thomas’s supervisor again met with him, explained the importance of a
respectful workplace, and informed him that harassment was unacceptable.
In October 2019, Thomas yet again made inappropriate comments to the co-worker,
which caused her to miss one day of work because she was upset. The company’s human-
resources manager met with Thomas to gather information from him. Thomas did not fully
cooperate. The human-resources manager learned that six other employees had witnessed
Thomas’s conduct toward the co-worker and had told him to stop. Thermotech terminated
Thomas’s employment.

3
In November 2019, Thomas applied fo r unemployment benefits. Based on the
information Thomas provided with his application, the department made an initial
determination that he is eligible for une mployment benefits. Thermotech filed an
administrative appeal and argued that Thomas should be ineligible because he engaged in
employment misconduct. An unemployment- law judge (ULJ) conducted a hearing by
telephone in January and Ma rch of 2020. Thermotech ’s human-resources manager
testified on behalf of the company; Thomas testified on his own behalf. After the hearing,
the ULJ issued a written decision in which he determined that T homas had engaged in
employment misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Thomas requested
reconsideration, but the ULJ denied the request and affirmed his prior ruling. Thomas now
appeals by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
Thomas argues that the ULJ erred by c oncluding that he is ineligible for
unemployment benefits based on a finding of employment misconduct.
Unemployment benefits are intended to pr ovide financial assistance to persons who
have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage
Place, Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, a person
who has been discharged from employmen t based on “employm ent misconduct” is
ineligible to receive unemployment benefits . Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (1) (2020);
Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 314. “Employment misconduct” is defined by statute to mean “any
intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious
violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of an

4
employee.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6( a) (2020). The statutory definition of
misconduct is exclusive such that “no other definition applies” to an application for
unemployment benefits. Id., subd. 6(e) (2020); see also Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Ctr.,
Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 458-59 (Minn. 2016). Generally, “refusing to abide by an
employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). More specifically,
violating an employer’s anti-harassment polic y is a form of employment misconduct.
Redalen v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 504 N.W.2d 237, 238 (Minn. App. 1993).
In an evidentiary hearing be fore a ULJ, neither party bears a burden of proof. Minn.
Stat. § 268.069, subd. 2 (2020); Wilson, 888 N.W.2d at 461. We review a ULJ’s findings
of fact “in the light most favorable to the decision” to determine whether “there is evidence
in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation
omitted). “Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus
v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).
In his one-page pro se brief, Thomas asserts that he “never harassed” the female co-
worker. In light of Thomas ’s contention, the question on appeal is whether there is
evidence in the record to su pport the ULJ’s finding that Thomas engaged in employment
misconduct by violating Thermotech’s anti-harassment policy. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d) (5) (2020). Ther motech’s policy prohibits ha rassment, including “offensive
language, jokes, or other verbal, graphic or physical conduct relating to an associate’s . . .
sex, . . . which would make a reasona ble person experiencing such harassment
uncomfortable in the work environment or in terfere with the person’s job performance.”

5
There is abundant evidence supporting the ULJ’s findings that Thomas made inappropriate
comments to a co-worker, some of which were sexual in nature. Thermotech’s human-
resources manager testified that the co-worker informed her that Thomas was making her
uncomfortable such that she did not want to go to work, that six other employees
corroborated the co-worker’s co mplaints, that Thomas had tw ice been warned about his
conduct, and that Thomas’s conduct violated Thermotech’s anti-hara ssment policy. The
human-resources manager introduced her note s into evidence, the notes of Thomas’s
supervisor, and Thermotech’s anti-harassment policy.
Thus, the ULJ did not err by finding that Thomas engaged in employment
misconduct and by concluding that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.