Nathan A. Rinne, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-1096

Nathan A. Rinne,
Relator,

vs.

Concordia University, St. Paul,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed March 6, 2023
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 48565315-3

Nathan Rinne, Columbia Heights, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Sean R. Somermeyer, Somermeyer Sullivan PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent employer)

Keri Phillips, Lossom Allen, Department of Employment and Economic Development,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Cleary,
Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he
was discharged for employment misconduct and ineligible for unemployment benefits. We
affirm.
FACTS
Relator Nathan A. Rinne worked at respondent Concordia University, St. Paul, as a
discovery metadata librarian. Concordia discharged Rinne for violating its policy
prohibiting inappropriate conduct and offensive behavior. Rinne requested unemployment
benefits. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
determined that Rinne was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was
discharged for misconduct.
Rinne appealed , and a ULJ held a hearing. Milissa Orchard, former director of
human resources, and Dee Ann Kerr, director of human resources operations, testified on
behalf of Concordia.
Orchard testified that Rinne requested a meeting to discuss Concordia’s social
media policy. Orchard, Kerr, and Rinne’s supervisor, Jon Nei lson, attended the meeting
on February 22, 2022, where they discussed Rinne’s social media use and how he could
not be perceived as speaking on behalf of Concordia. She stated that Rinne “became very
physically animated.” He raised his voice, interrupted, waved his arms, and smacked the
table. Rinne made Orchard feel “uncomfortable [and] concerned for [her] own safety.”
Orchard stated that Rinne “almost lung[ed]” at her, causing her to “reel back in [her] chair”
3
because he “invade[d] [her] personal space.” She testified that she was “worried that [she
was] going to be physically attacked.”
Kerr testified that Rinne was “ very unprofessional” and “very combative.” He
invaded space, stood up, raised his hands, pounded on the table, and pointed his finger in
Neilson’s face. Kerr stated that she contemplated calling campus security because
“everybody became very fearful.”
Orchard testified about other situations involving notices to Rinne about his conduct
and unprofessional communications, but she testified that Rinne’s “behavior during that
meeting” caused his discharge because “three people in the room were concerned with their
own physical safety.” Kerr testified that Rinne’s conduct violated Concordia’s policy on
“workplace harassment and other inappropriate conduct.”
Rinne admitted that he was “raising [his] voice, shouting, kind of waiving [his]
arms, [and] smacking the table.” He stated:
I was just feeling like I had been under siege and under attac k
and I told them that. . . . I was really frustrated. And so . . . I
knew [the meeting] had gone badly because when [Nei lson]
said that my behavior had become the issue in the meeting, I
pretty much knew at that point that I was going to be fired.
Because I ’m like crap, I just gave them a really good
reason . . . for why they should fire me. And I knew that. I
knew that really well; that I had basically gotten too upset and,
you know, unprofessional. I could certainly see how someone
could describe my . . . behavior that way.

The ULJ determined that Rinne was discharged for the employment misconduct of
acting “unprofessionally and disrespectfully” at the meeting and was ineligible for
unemployment benefits. The ULJ stated that Rinne’s behavior was “a serious violation”
4
of Concordia’s reasonable expectations because he “raised his voice, gestured elaborately
with his hands, slammed his hands on the table, stood up, interrupted others speaking, and
caused physical safety concerns.” The ULJ decided that Rinne’s actions were “intentional,
negligent, or indifferent” because he knew that he should have acted professionally and
respectfully but failed to do so.
Rinne requested reconsideration. He claimed that Concordia did not provide
credible testimony at the hearing and that the ULJ failed to consider his claim that
Concordia retaliated against him because he questioned the lawfulness of Concordia’s
COVID-19 mandates.
The ULJ affirmed the decision. The ULJ found that Concordia’s witnesses were
“more credible” than Rinne because their testimony was supported by facts that both parties
agreed to and “was corroborated in part by Rinne’s testimony.” The ULJ found that Rinne
acknowledged that his conduct was so unprofessional that he had given Concordia a reason
to discharge him. The ULJ also found that there was no evidence that Concordia took
adverse action toward Rinne regarding his concerns with Concordia’s COVID-19
mandates. Rinne filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this court.
DECISION
Rinne argues that the ULJ erred by determining that he was discharged for
misconduct and ineligible for unemployment benefits.
An applicant discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2022). “Whether an employee
committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law. Whether the
5
employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721
N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (citation omitted). We review the “ULJ’s factual
findings in the light most favorable to the decision,” giving deference to the ULJ’s
credibility determinations. Id. We will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when they
are substantially supported by the evidence. Id.
The ULJ found that acting “unprofessionally and disrespectfully” led to Rinne’s
discharge. The ULJ found that Rinne became angry and frustrated at the meeting. He
raised his voice, gestured elaborately, slammed the table, stood up, and interrupted others.
As a result, individuals at the meeting had “physical safety concerns.” Rinne was told to
reel back his behavior, but he failed to do so. The record supports the ULJ’s finding.
Orchard testified that Rinne raised his voice, interrupted, waved his arms, smacked
the table, stood up, leaned toward her, and invaded her space. When Rinne “almost
lung[ed]” at Orchard, she rolled back in her chair and worried that he was going to attack
her. Kerr’s description of Rinne’s behavior matched Orchard’s account. And Rinne
admitted that he was unprofessional and gave Concordia a reason to discharge him.
Having concluded that the evidence support s the ULJ’s finding that Rinne acted
unprofessionally and disrespectfully, we must now review de novo whether this act
constitutes employment misconduct. See Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344. Employment
misconduct is “any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on or off the job, that is a
serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably
expect of the employee.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2022).
6
Rinne claims that 1) his behavior was not intentional, negligent, or indifferent;
2) Concordia retaliated against him for whistleblowing; 3) the evidence at the hearing was
false; 4) he was never told of corrective action; 5) a single incident is not misconduct; and
6) he merely committed a good-faith error in judgment.
“[A]ggressive and offensive” conduct can qualify as employment misconduct.
Pitzel v. Packaged Furniture & Carpet, 362 N.W.2d 357, 357-58 (Minn. App. 1985).
Refusing to follow an employer’s reasonable policy is employment misconduct, and “[a]
single incident can constitute misconduct when an employee deliberately chooses a course
of conduct that is adverse to the employer.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d
801, 804, 806 (Minn. 2002).
Rinne was discharged for violating Concordia’s policy prohibiting inappropriate
and offensive conduct. Concordia provided DEED a copy of the policy, which states:
“Concordia St. Paul strives to create and maintain a work environment in which people are
treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Employees should be able to work and learn in
a safe yet stimulating atmosphere.” The ULJ found that Rinne was disrespectful at the
meeting. Rinne’s conduct violates Concordia’s policy, which is employment misconduct.
Rinne’s single incident is employment misconduct because he deliberately chose
this course of conduct. He admitted that he had had respectful conversations with Orchard
in the past. And the evidence shows that Rinne was told to modify his conduct at the
meeting, but he failed or refused to do so. Rinne’s conduct was also adverse to Concordia
because it put Concordia’s employees in fear for their physical safety.
7
Rinne’s unprofessional and disrespectful conduct , combined with the fact that he
violated Concordia’s policy prohibiting such behavior, is employment misconduct
disqualifying him from the receipt of unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.