Stacy Adamsheck, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1507

Stacy Adamsheck,
Relator,

vs.

Kelley Fuels, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed July 26, 2021
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 42365733-2

Howard L. Bolter, Bolter Law, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)

Kelley Fuels, Inc., Shakopee, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FRISCH, Judge
Relator challenges the determination by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she
is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Stacy Adamsheck was employed full -time by Respondent Kelley Fuels,
Inc., co-owned by Daniel Kelley and Valerie Amsden . On Thursday, March 19, 2020,
Kelley Fuels announced the temporary reduction of hours of multiple employees, including
Adamsheck, due to the COVID -19 pandemic. The events relevant to Adamsheck’s
discharge from employment occurred in the three days after the announcement.
Employment Misconduct
The following events occurred on Friday. Adamsheck did not raise any concerns to
Kelley while they were both in the office. At approximately 7:50 p.m., Adamsheck sent a
text message to Amsden, her direct supervisor, complaining that another employee
received pay during a two -week quarantine while Adamsheck was “basically tak [ing] a
week pay per month [cut]. Not fair!” Amsden also received text notifications that
Adamsheck “loved” and then “questioned” her own text message. Approximately 35
minutes later, Adamsheck sent the same text message to Kelley. Kelley called Adamsheck
on the phone to discuss her concerns and informed her that he did not appreciate the late
night text message. At 8:44 p.m., Amsden responded to Adamsheck’s text message as
follows:
3
This is something that either [Kelley] or I are more than willing
to discuss with you on Monday. By text is not appropriate, and
there is more to the situation that [sic] what you are hearing. I
would very much appreciate if you would not make
assumptions or jump to conclusions. The goal right now is to
protect jobs, AND to keep everyone safe. Thank you.

At 9:26 p.m., Amsden received the following text message from Adamsheck’s phone: “Yet
Megan and [sic] Get pay cuts.” At 9:37 p.m., Amsden received another text message from
Adamsheck’s phone: “It averages a full week every month and I already took $1.50 an
hour cut when [sic] started.”
The following events occurred on Saturday. At 6:17 p.m., Adamsheck sent Amsden
another text message, which opened with “I know I am not your favorite person right now,”
and asked for the COVID -19 test results of a coworker. Thereafter, the following text -
message exchange took place:
6:36 p.m.
AMSDEN: As soon as we know, we will let you know.

6:37 p.m.
ADAMSHECK: Bullshit
AMSDEN: Excuse me?
ADAMSHECK: She did not even respond to me
AMSDEN: Who did not respond to you?

6:38 p.m.
ADAMSHECK: [Amsden]
AMSDEN: You are texting me right now. I was eating dinner.
We have not heard, and I am really not appreciating the way
you are texting me. At all.

6:39 p.m.
ADAMSHECK: [Amsden] we need to know what is going on

4
6:40 p.m.
AMSDEN: [Adamsheck], we have not received any updates
yet. Once we know, we will communicate.

6:43 p.m.
ADAMSHECK: I need a sick day Monday as I can not [sic]
deal with all of this

At 7:20 p.m., Amsden called Adamsheck and received no answer. About one
minute later, Adamsheck returned Amsde n’s call , and Amsden reiterated that the text
messages from Adamsheck were inappropriate and that Kelley Fuels would communicate
the coworker ’s test results once they had them , as she had previously explained to
Adamsheck. At 7:38 p.m., Adamsheck’s husban d sent the following email to Kelley:
“Listening to my wife [Adamsheck] and her conversation is boarding [sic] comical. She
is done with [Amsden] who is someone that everyone I know says is a miserable person.
Know your business in side [sic] and out look me up. Leave [Adamsheck] alone.” At 8:01
p.m., Amsden received a phone call from Adamsheck’s phone, during which Amsden
heard several seconds of silence before the call disconnected.
The following events occurred on Sunday. In the morning, Kelley left Adamsheck
a voicemail stating that he understood the March 21 email to be her resignation.
Adamsheck called Kelley later in the day and explained that her husband had sent the email
without her knowledge or consent and that she wanted to continue her employment with
Kelley Fuels. Kelley then informed Adamsheck that she was being discharged due to her
behavior over the weekend. Later that evening, Adamsheck sent the following t ext
message to Amsden: “Not that it matters at this point but I would never send the last few
texts. I respect you and your family and would never disrespect like that!”
5
Denial of Unemployment Benefits
Adamsheck thereafter applied for unemployment benef its. On May 6, respondent
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) issued a
determination that Adamsheck was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was
discharged for employment misconduct. Adamsheck appealed , and a UL J conducted a
hearing, during which Adamsheck, Adamsheck’s husband, Kelley, and Amsden testified.
Kelley testified that he was caught off guard by Adamsheck’s first text on Friday
given that she did not raise any concerns while she was in the office earlier that day. When
Kelly received the message, he immediately called Adamsheck and noted that Adamsheck
seemed to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs because “she was slurring her words”
and was “very, very emotional.” Kelley told Adamsheck that he “didn’t appreciate the late
night texts and that if she did need [sic] something to say that she should call. ” Kelley
reiterated that text messages and emails were not the appropriate method to address
employment issues.
Kelley testified that he initially believed the email sent from Adamsheck’s husband
was intended to communicate Adamsheck ’s resignation . B ut after learning that
Adamsheck was unaware of her husband’s email, Kelley still believed the employment
relationship needed to end due to Adamsheck’s “misconduct and disrespect[]” over the
weekend. Kelley testified that he believed that all of the text messages came from
Adamsheck directly because her quick responses to his and Amsden’s phone calls made it
seem “that she had control of her phone.” He stated that conversations with Adamsheck
by phone and text message over the weekend, along with the email received from her
6
husband, “resulted in the decision to terminate [her] employment.” Kelley also testified
that “[t]he disrespect shown and alarming words and tones of these communications as
well as the time chosen to send them were cause enough to involve the local police
department.”
Amsden testified that she called Adamsheck on Saturday and reiterated that the text
messages were not appropriate and need ed to stop. During that call, Amsden noted
Adamsheck was “slurring her words.” Amsden testified that she had “no reason to think
[Adamsheck] didn’t send the text messages” because they came from Adamsheck’s phone,
Adamsheck later called her from that same phone, and when Amsden mentioned the text
messages and asked Adamsheck to stop texting her , Adamsheck never questioned what
messages were s ent or denied sending those messages. Amsden also testified that she
believed Adamsheck sent the Saturday night text messages because Adamsheck admit ted
to receiving Amsden’s 6:36 p.m. response, and although the phone record shows the
delivery of the text message, “Bullshit” a minute later, Amsden testified that the response
“was immediate.”
Adamsheck testified that she did not recall that Kelley had asked her to stop texting
him during their Friday night phone call , but stated that she “did not have any further
communications with him after that.” She also stated that her voice was “shaky” because
she was emotional due to her husband “getting involved.” Adamsheck admitted to sending
the initial text messages to Kelley and Amsden complaining about her reduction in hours,
but she claimed that her husband sent the other Friday night text messages without her
knowledge or consent. Adamsheck also admitted to sending a text message to Amsden on
7
Saturday night requesting an update on her coworker’s COVID -19 t est results, but she
claimed that once she saw Amsden’s response she sent no further text messages.
Adamsheck testified that the text messages sent thereafter came from her husband and that
she did not know he had sent them until she received Kelley’s voi cemail on Sunday.
Adamsheck admitted that Amsden told her on Saturday that the text messages needed to
stop, but testified that she “thought that [Amsden] was speaking about the earlier ones . . .
questioning whether or not they had gotten test results back” for her coworker.
Adamsheck’s husband testified that he used Adamsheck’s phone to send text
messages to Amsden on Saturday night when he was intoxicated and that Adamsheck was
“probably not” aware he was using her cell phone. Adamsheck’s husband l ater testified
that he sent the email to Kelley and was “probably not” under the influence of drugs or
alcohol when any of these events occurred.
The ULJ issued her findings of fact and a decision, concluding that Adamsheck was
terminated for employment misconduct and was therefore not eligible for unemployment
benefits. The ULJ found “the employer’s witnesses’ testimony regarding the events
leading to Adamsheck’s discharge more credible because it was more straightforward and
direct, and because it described the more likely series of the events.” The ULJ detailed her
reasons for her credibility determinations as follows:
Although Adamsheck denied that Kelley told her to stop
texting on the evening of March, 20, 2020, the unemployment
law judge found it highly unlikely that Kelley would lie about
telling Adamsheck to stop texting and much more likely that
Kelley gave this instruction to Adamsheck. Furthermore, the
unemployment law judge found it more likely that Stacy
Adamsheck, rather than [her husband], sent the series of text
8
messages to Amsden on March 21, 2020, as the text messages
were written from her perspective, not someone else’s.
Adamsheck also may not have realized that she included
Amsden on the text messages that she sent to [another
coworker], but they ultimately would not have made sense if
they were written by [Adamsheck’s husband]. When
[Adamsheck’s husband] emailed Kelley, he chose to identify
himself as Adamsheck’s husband, rather than pretending to be
Adamsheck. Adamsheck also did not deny sending the texts
to Amsden when Amsden spoke to her on the phone that
evening and told her that her text messages were inappropriate.
Additionally, the unemployment law judge finds it more likely
that Adamsheck was slurring her words, as the em ployer’s
witnesses claimed, due to being intoxicated, and less likely that
her voice sounded different due to her simply being upset. The
content of Adamsheck’s text messages was also, at times,
somewhat bizarre, for example, when she both “loved” and
“questioned” her own text message.

Adamsheck filed a request for reconsideration. On November 23, the ULJ affirmed
and issued an order, finding that “the unemployment law judge . . . thoroughly explained
why she found the employer’s witnesses’ testimony more credible than Adamsheck’s” and
concluding that the ULJ’s “findings of fact and decision [were] supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in the record.” This appeal follows.
DECISION
Adamsheck argues that the ULJ erred in finding that Adamsheck, not her husband,
sent the objectionable text messages. We may reverse or modify a ULJ’s determination if
“the findings, inferences, conclusion, or deci sion are . . . unsupported by substantial
evidence in view of the hearing record as submitted.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(5)
(2020). “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to sup port a conclusion.” Gonzalez Diaz v. Three Rivers Cmty.
9
Action, Inc. , 917 N.W.2d 813, 816 n.4 (Minn. App. 2018) . “[W]e review the ULJ’s
findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings
as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Wilson v.
Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted). We will
affirm such findings if “supported by substantial evidence” and if “the statutorily required
reason for [the ULJ’s] credibility determination” is provided. Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless
Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Minn. App. 2007) (setting forth factors to consider in
making credibility determinations , such as “ Is the testimony reasonable compared with
other evidence?”). We “also give[] deference to the credibility determinations made by the
ULJ.” Peterson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review
denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).
The ULJ’s finding that Adamsheck continued to directly send text messages to her
employer after being instructed not to do so supports the conclusion that Adamsheck
committed employment misconduct.1 This finding is based on substantial evidence in the
record. The ULJ specifically found “the employer’s witnesses’ testimony regarding the
events leading to Adamsheck’s discharge more credible because it was more
straightforward and direct, and because it described the more likely series of the events.”
The ULJ found it more likely that the text messages were authored by Adamsheck because,
unlike the email sent by Adamsheck’s husband, “the text messages were written from her
perspective,” and Adamsheck “did not deny sending the texts to Amsden” when they spoke

1 Adamsheck does not contest the ULJ’s finding that the delivery of the text messages, if
sent by her, amounted to employment misconduct.
10
on the phone about the text messages. The ULJ also found “it more likely that Adamsheck
was slurring her words, as the employer’s witnesses claimed, due to being intoxicated, and
less likely that her voice sounded different due to her simply being upset” because “[t]he
content of Adamsheck’s text messages was also, at times, somewhat bizarre, for example
when she both ‘loved’ and ‘questioned’ her own text message.”
Adamsheck argues th at the ULJ erred in finding that she committed misconduct
because she “did not control, nor did she engage in, the misconduct which triggered her
termination” and contends that she “ did not send the offensive texts which contained
swearing.” In other words, Adamsheck argues that the ULJ should have credited her
testimony and not the testimony of her employer. But at oral argument, counsel for
Adamsheck conceded that evidence in the record did in fact support the ULJ’s credibility
determination. And we cannot conclude that the ULJ’s determination that the text
messages originated with Adamsheck is “unsupported by substantial evidence.” See Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (5). The ULJ supported its credibility determinations with
logical exp lanations, and the conclusions are supported by phone records and witness
testimony. Accordingly, we affirm because there is sufficient “evidence in the record that
reasonably tends to sustain” the ULJ’s findings. Wilson, 888 N.W.2d at 460.
Affirmed.