Christine A. Koch, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0956

Christine A. Koch,
Relator,

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed March 11, 2024
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 49200079-3

Barbara L. Jones, St. Paul, Minnesota (for relator)

Joseph G. Schmitt, Nilan Johnson Lewis, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent
Wells Fargo Bank, NA)

Keri Phillips, Katrina Gulstad, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent-department)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
Relator Christine A. Koch seeks review of an unemployment- law judge’s (ULJ)
decision that Koch was not eligible for unemployment benefits because respondent-
employer discharged her for employment misconduct. Relator argues that (1) the ULJ
failed to adequately develop the record regarding the incident underlying her discharge,
and (2) the incident did not rise to the level of employment misconduct. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Wells Fargo Bank, NA employed Koch to work on complaints from
customers related to their mortgages. Koch became frustrated by a colleague’s alleged
mishandling of a customer’s case by failing to stop a check. Koch emailed her manager
that she wanted “to punch [the colleague] in the teeth” and “kick them where it counts.”
Koch also wrote that she wanted to “throw rocks at [Wells Fargo] signs” and that Wells
Fargo “tends to make sexist decisions.” Koch saved the email in the customer’s closing
documents, which are permanent records of the case and viewable by other Wells Fargo
employees. Wells Fargo discharged Koch, referencing its policy of prohibiting “violent
and potentially threatening” statements.
After Wells Fargo discharged Koch, she applied for unemployment benefits. After
a hearing, the ULJ determined that Koch engaged in misconduct and was, therefore,
ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Koch filed a request for reconsideration, and
the ULJ affirmed the decision. This certiorari appeal follows.
3
DECISION
In unemployment-benefit cases, we review “the ULJ’s factual findings in the light
most favorable to the decision” and we do not “disturb those findings as long as there is
evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.,
796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). “Whether an employee engaged
in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question
of fact and law.” Id. (quotation omitted). We review de novo the question of whether a
particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct. Id.
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to workers who
have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg,
796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation omitted). An applicant is ineligible for unemployment
benefits if they are discharged for employment misconduct, defined as “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 reas onably expect of the employee.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4(1), (6)(a) (2022). “As a general rule, 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).
Koch argues the ULJ erred in concluding that Koch engaged in employment
misconduct because the “threat” in her email was not serious. We are not persuaded.
The ULJ found that Wells Fargo “had the right to reasonably expect that Koch
would not write an email stating she wanted to harm another employee or damage company
property.” The ULJ rejected Koch’s testimony that including the email in the closing
4
documents was “inadvertent,” finding that Koch could have taken reasonable steps to
prevent saving the email. The ULJ then concluded that “Koch’s conduct seriously violated
the standards of behavior Wells Fargo had the right to reasonably expect because she
intentionally wrote statements which may reasonably be perceived as threatening and she
included them in closing documents.”
The record contains evidence that reasonably tends to sustain the ULJ’s findings.
Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315. For instance, Koch sent an email proclaiming her desire to
“punch” and “kick” her colleague, and Koc h’s email was saved as part of the closing
documents. The evidence supports the ULJ’s findings.
We also must defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Skarhus v. Davanni’s
Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). The ULJ rejected Koch’s testimony that
including the email in the closing documents was inadvertent. The ULJ found Koch could
have taken reasonable steps before saving the email in the closing documents.
In applying our de novo review, we discern no error with the ULJ’s conclusion that
Koch violated the standards of behavior that Wells Fargo had the right to reasonably expect
of her. Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315; Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4(1), (6)(a). The ULJ
properly concluded that Koch “should have known to restrain from making” statements
about wanting to hurt another employee. The ULJ credited Koch’s testimony that she had
no intention of hurting anyone, but also found that Wells Fargo had a reasonable
expectation that their employees would refrain from making such statements.
Koch also argues the ULJ failed in its obligation to help develop the record during
her testimony. A ULJ has an obligation to “assist all parties in the presentation of
5
evidence” and “ensure that all relevant facts are clearly and fully developed.” Minn. R.
3310.2921 (2021). But the ULJ is not the attorney for an unrepresented party and must
“maintain neutrality to assure fairness to all parties.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck
Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 32 (Minn. App. 2012).
Koch does not point to any specific place in the transcript to support her argument
that the ULJ failed to assist her in developing the record. We will not presume error on
appeal. See Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. 1944) (stating that error
is not presumed on appeal and appellant bears the burden of showing error on appeal). Our
review of the transcript reveals that the ULJ fulfilled the obligation of assisting Koch in
developing the record while also remaining neutral. Stassen, 814 N.W.2d at 32. For
example, the ULJ asked Koch clarifying questions during her testimony. In addition, the
ULJ allowed Koch to testify in detail regarding her conduct, admitted her written
statements into evidence, and permitted her to make a closing statement. We conclude the
ULJ did not fail in the obligation to assist Koch in developing the record.
Affirmed.