Marcel Vaudrin, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0455

Marcel Vaudrin,
Relator,

vs.

Tri-Valley Opportunity Council, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed October 14, 2024
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 50042479-3

Marcel Vaudrin, Crookston, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Tri-Valley Opportunity Council, Inc., Crookston, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
Relator Marcel Vaudrin challenges an unemployment-law judge’s decision that he
was not eligible for unemployment benefits, contending that his actions of urinating in
public did not constitute employment misconduct. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Respondent-employer Tri-Valley Opportunity Council (Tri-Valley) employed
Vaudrin as a maintenance assistant and backup bus driver. In September 2023, an
employee observed Vaudrin urinating in the Tri-Valley shop wash bay. A supervisor
instructed Vaudrin to use the bathroom. The next month, a member of the public reported
seeing Vaudrin urinating in an alley near the bus that Vaudrin was operating.
Tri-Valley supervisors investigated. Vaudrin confirmed that he urinated in the alley,
and Tri-Valley terminated him for misconduct. Tri-Valley noted that Vaudrin should have
known his behavior was inappropriate due to the earlier incident, and that Vaudrin should
have known his conduct violated the company’s “professional conduct policy.”
Vaudrin applied for unemployment benefits. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) initially determined that Vaudrin was
eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Tri-Valley appealed.
After a hearing, the unemployment-law judge determined that Vaudrin engaged in
employment misconduct and was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Vaudrin
filed a request for reconsideration. The reviewing unemployment-law judge affirmed.
This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
Individuals who are “unemployed through no fault of their own” may receive
unemployment benefits as a “temporary partial wage replacement.” Minn. Stat. § 268.03,
subd. 1 (2022). But a n individual who was discharged for “employment misconduct” is
ineligible for benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2022). The legislature has
3
defined employment misconduct 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 reasonably expect of the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a) (2022). “[A]n
employee’s decision to violate knowingly a reasonable policy of the employer is
misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 806 (Minn. 2002).
Whether an employee’s actions constitute employment misconduct is a mixed
question of fact and law. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App.
2006). Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact that we review
in the light most favorable to the unemployment-law judge’s decision. Id. Whether the
act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.
Vaudrin argues his act did not constitute misconduct because Tri-Valley’s policy
only “expected” an employee “to conduct him/herself in a professional manner.” 1 We
disagree. Although Tri-Valley’s policy did not include an explicit prohibition against
public urination, an express policy is not required to find misconduct. Brisson v. City of
Hewitt, 789 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding that employee’s act constituted
misconduct even absent a policy forbidding viewing pornography on a company
computer). Tri-Valley’s policy expecting professionalism covered Vaudrin’s conduct.
Moreover, Crookston’s city code makes it unlawful for an individual to urinate in
public. See Crookston, Minn., City Code § 130.05(F)(1) (2019). Tri-Valley’s policy

1 Vaudrin also argues his act did not constitute misconduct because other drivers urinated
outside of bathrooms. We are not persuaded. Whether other employees were discharged
for violating the same rules is not relevant to our analysis. See Sivertson v. Sims Sec., Inc.,
390 N.W.2d 868, 871 (Minn. App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 1986).
4
regarding professionalism inherently includes the concept that employees will follow the
law while acting as an agent for the company. We discern no error in the unemployment-
law judge’s conclusion that Tri-Valley terminated Vaudrin for employment misconduct.
Before the unemployment-law judge, Vaudrin also contended that he had a medical
condition that required him to urinate immediately upon feeling the urge to
urinate. Vaudrin claimed that he had “a bladder infection,” “a prostate problem,” and a
prior injury that coincided with the onset of his bladder issues. Vaudrin testified that his
doctor told him to watch his diet, drink cranberry juice, and to take over-the-counter
medication if his condition worsened. Vaudrin argued that the medical condition should
have excused his actions from constituting employment misconduct.
This argument fails because Vaudrin did not submit any evidence to the
unemployment-law judge that a doctor had diagnosed him with a medical condition that
would require him to urinate immediately upon having the urge to urinate. Vaudrin also
provided no evidence that he informed Tri-Valley of any medical condition before he was
terminated. Even if Vaudrin could have received an accommodation, his employer would
need to know about the condition. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a) (2022);2 see also
Larson v. Koch Refin. Co., 920 F. Supp. 1000, 1005 (D. Minn. 1996) (“[P]roviding
accommodation is only appropriate where the employer knows that the Plaintiff is disabled
and is in need of accommodation.”).

2 Even if Vaudrin had a medical condition that required him to urinate in public the moment
he felt the urge to go, the record reveals there was a gas station with a bathroom four blocks
away from the alley where Vaudrin urinated.
5
The unemployment-law judge found that Vaudrin’s testimony related to his medical
issues “was exaggerated and not believable.” The unemployment-law judge determined
that, although Vaudrin may have had prostate problems that cause d him discomfort, a
“preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Vaudrin does not have a medical
condition that is so severe that he cannot hold the urge to urinate for five minutes.” The
unemployment-law judge, instead, found that the “most likely explanation is Vaudrin was
often indifferent towards using public restrooms[.]” We give deference to the judge’s
credibility determinations. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344.
We conclude the unemployment-law judge correctly determined that Vaudrin was
discharged for employment misconduct and thus is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.