Joe J. Bezdicek, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-2010

Joe J. Bezdicek,
Relator,

vs.

Northco Construction, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 25, 2025
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 50847702-3

Joe J. Bezdicek, Albert Lea, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lucas D. Wilson, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Frisch, Chief Judge;
and Johnson, Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Joe J. Bezdicek was fired from his job as a carpenter because he did not comply
with his supervisor’s instruction to take no action with respect to abandoned cats at a job
site. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determined that Bezdicek is ineligible for
unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment misconduct. We
affirm.
FACTS
Bezdicek was employed as a carpenter for NorthCo Construction LLC from 2021
until early 2024. In the last week of his employment with NorthCo, Bezdicek was
performing repairs on a rental house owned by a company that was a customer of NorthCo.
While at the job site, Bezdicek discovered that several cats were living in the rental house.
Bezdicek informed his supervisor, Matt Heger, project manager for NorthCo, that there
were abandoned cats in the house. Heger informed a project manager for the customer that
cats were at the house, and the project manager contacted a third party to remove the cats.
Heger told Bezdicek that it was not his responsibility to address the cat issue and that the
customer would do so.
Soon after Bezdicek’s conversation with Heger about the cats, Bezdicek made a
social-media post in which he asked “for someone to rescue” the cats and provided the
address of the rental house. Several persons saw Bezdicek’s social-media post and went
to the rental house. The evidence is in conflict as to whether Bezdicek allowed the would-
be rescuers to enter the rental house. But it is undisputed that the would-be rescuers were
3
not allowed to rescue all of the cats and that they contacted NorthCo’s customer directly to
complain.
NorthCo’s customer was displeased. The customer informed NorthCo that it would
not allow Bezdicek to work on its projects. The customer also terminated its business
relationship with NorthCo, which previously had generated several hundreds of thousands
of dollars of revenue per year for NorthCo. After the customer discontinued the business
relationship, NorthCo had no other work for Bezdicek and terminated his employment.
In July 2024, Bezdicek applied to the department of employment and economic
development for unemployment benefits. The department made an initial determination
that he is eligible for benefits. NorthCo filed an administrative appeal of the initial
determination. In August 2024, a ULJ conducted a hearing by telephone. Heger testified
on behalf of NorthCo; Bezdicek testified on his own behalf. After the hearing, the ULJ
issued a written decision in which he found that Bezdicek engaged in employment
misconduct by disobeying Heger’s instruction to take no action with respect to the cats.
Accordingly, the ULJ determined that Bezdicek is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Bezdicek requested reconsideration, but the ULJ affirmed the prior ruling. Bezdicek
appeals by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
Bezdicek argues that the ULJ erred by finding that he engaged in employment
misconduct and determining that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who
have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage
4
Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). A person who has
been discharged from employment because of “employment misconduct” is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2024). “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 the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a). In
general, an employee ’s refusal to comply with 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). This court applies
a de novo standard of review to a ULJ’s determination that an applicant’ s conduct
constitutes disqualifying misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4) (2024); Stagg,
796 N.W.2d at 315.
Bezdicek’s argument for reversal has three parts, which we address in turn.
A.
Bezdicek first argues that he was discharged because of a lack of work, not because
of employment misconduct. He notes that Heger testified that NorthCo was willing to
continue to employ him on jobs for other customers but did not have any such work
available. Bezdicek’s argument is not viable because, under the unemployment statute, a
finding that an applicant was discharged for lack of work is not outcome-determinative.
The statutory definition of “discharge” states, in part: “A layoff because of lack of work is
a discharge.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 5(a). An applicant who was “discharged from
5
employment” may or may not be eligible for benefits, depending on the reason for the
discharge. See id., subds. 4-6a. An applicant who was discharged because of “employment
misconduct” or “aggravated employment misconduct” is ineligible for unemployment
benefits, whereas an applicant who was discharged for any other reason is eligible for
unemployment benefits. Id., subd. 4. Thus, Bezdicek’s assertion that he was discharged
for lack of work merely begs the question whether he was discharged because of
employment misconduct.
B.
Bezdicek also argues that he did not engage in employment misconduct. He
acknowledges that employment misconduct is defined 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 the employee.” See i d.,
subd. 6(a). But he does not explain why his conduct does not satisfy that standard, except
to say that, when he made the social-media post about the cats, his conduct was “a matter
of conscience, wholly free of malicious thought or intent.”
An employee’s conduct satisfies the statutory standard of employment misconduct
if the employee “refus [es] to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests.”
Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804. “When an employee’s refusal to carry out a directive of
the employer is deliberate, calculated, and intentional, then the refusal is misconduct.” Id.
at 806. A finding of malicious intent or bad faith is not required. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095,
subd. 6(a). Whether the employee had a “ wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s
6
interests” or a “wrongful intent or evil design” is irrelevant. Wilson v. Mortgage Resource
Ctr. Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 457-58 & n.7 (Minn. 2016).
At the hearing, Heger testified that NorthCo’s customer banned Bezdicek from
working on its projects because he “made inappropriate comments on Facebook pertaining
to the job and denied the rescue people access to rescue the cats.” Heger also testified that,
because Bezdicek no longer was allowed to work for that customer, NorthCo had no
“ability to offer him any work.” Heger concluded his testimony by stating that Bezdicek
was “let go due to his conduct. ” The ULJ found Heger’s testimony on this issue to be
credible, and this court generally defers to a ULJ’s credibility determination. See Skarhus
v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Heger’s testimony
corresponds to Bezdicek’s response to a department questionnaire , in which Bezdicek
stated that he was discharged because he “ used [a] customer’s name on a Facebook
comment.” The ULJ found that Bezdicek was discharged because he disobeyed Heger’s
instruction to take no action with respect to the cats and, instead, “posted on social media
the address of the house that had the abandoned cats” and “refused entry to the animal
rescue volunteers to the house with the cats.”
As a general rule, “if the request of the employer is reasonable and does not impose
an unreasonable burden on the employee, the employee’s refusal to abide by the request
constitutes misconduct.” Vargas v. Northwest Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.
App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). Reasonableness varies by the
circumstances of the case. Sandstrom v. Douglas Mach. Corp., 372 N.W.2d 89, 91 (Minn.
App. 1985). In these circumstances, Heger’s instruction to Bezdicek was reasonable
7
because the cats were outside the scope of NorthCo’s and Bezdicek’s work and because
Heger already had contacted the customer, which had assumed responsibility for removing
the cats. An employer has a right to expect its employees to comply with reasonable
requests. See V argas, 673 N.W.2d at 207 (citing Bibeau v. Resistance Tech., Inc., 411
N.W.2d 29, 32 (Minn. App. 1987), and Daniels v. Gnan Trucking, 352 N.W.2d 815, 816
(Minn. App. 1984)). In addition, an employer has a right to expect its employees to not
take any action that is contrary to the interests of an employer’ s customer. Frank v.
Heartland Auto. Servs., Inc., 743 N.W.2d 626, 629-31 (Minn. App. 2008) (overcharging);
Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank , 384 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn. App. 1986)
(rudeness), rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986). In this case, Bezdicek did not comply with
Heger’s reasonable request, which resulted in NorthCo losing a customer and hundreds of
thousands of dollars of revenue per year.
Bezdicek appears to contend that the social-media post was a good-faith error in
judgment rather than employment misconduct. The statutory definition of employment
misconduct excludes “good faith errors in judgment if judgment was required.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 6(b)(6) (emphasis added). But no judgment was required of Bezdicek
after Heger clearly told him to take no action with respect to the cats . Consequently, the
good-faith-error-in-judgment exception does not apply.
Thus, the ULJ did not err by determining that Bezdicek engaged in employment
misconduct.

8
C.
Bezdicek last argues that the ULJ’s finding of employment misconduct is precluded
by a statute that provides, “A person is not liable for rendering humane assistance to an
injured pet or companion animal.” Minn. Stat. § 346.37, subd. 2 (2024). That statute is
part of the Pet and Companion Animal Welfare Act. See Minn. Stat. §§ 346.35-.44 (2024).
The act applies only “to veterinarians, animal boarding facilities, and commercial animal
facilities.” Minn. Stat. § 346.36, subd 1. Bezdicek does not claim to be a veterinarian or
to qualify as one of the covered facilities. In any event, “The definition of employment
misconduct provided by [section 268.095, subdivision 6] is exclusive and no other
definition applies.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(e); see also Wilson, 888 N.W.2d at 458;
Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 316. Thus, the statute on which Bezdicek relies does not apply.
In sum, the ULJ did not err by determining that Bezdicek is ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.