Erik Schmid, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1795

Erik Schmid,
Relator,

vs.

Greenhaven Elementary,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed July 20, 2026
Affirmed
Rasmusson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 51551383-4

Erik Schmid, Hibbing, Minnesota (self -represented relator)

Greenhaven Elementary, Hibbing, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Bond, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Rasmusson,
Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
RASMUSSON, Judge
Relator-employee challenges the determination of an unemployment -law judge
(ULJ) that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that the ULJ erred by
concluding that he was discharged for failure to obtain required licensure and
insubordination rather than districtwide budget cuts. Because relator forfeited a portion of
his argument on appeal and the record reasonably supports the ULJ’s determination, we
affirm.
FACTS
From March 13, 2017, to February 1, 2025, relator -employee Erik Schmid worked
for Independent School District No. 701, generally known as Hibbing Public Schools. In
July 2022, Schmid applied for a fireman- custodian position at respondent -employer
Greenhaven Elementary, a school within the district. The posted job description required
that applicants possess a Class C license within 13 months of the start date.1 Schmid did
not possess a Class C license when he applied for the position, and he knew when he
accepted the job that he must obtain the licensure by October 2023.
To obtain a Class C license, Schmid needed to (1) hold a Special Engineer license,
(2) have 12 months of relevant boiler experience ,2 (3) receive an affidavit from a manager

1 District staff testified that the school was required to have a staff member with such
licensure because it has a boiler with an engine of more than 50 horsepower.

2 The record suggests that an individual must obtain the Special Engineer license before
obtaining the relevant boiler experience.
3
stating that he possessed the relevant boiler experience, and (4) pass a licensure exam.
Schmid had the option to take preparatory classes and receive study materials to assist him
in passing the licensure exam, but neither were required to obtain a Class C license.
On September 13, 2023, Schmid obtained his Special Engineer license, but he had
not completed the other prerequisites for obtaining a Class C license. Around this time,
Schmid’s supervisor reminded him that he still needed to obtain the Class C license.
Greenhaven Elementary extended the deadline for Schmid to obtain the license until
October 1, 2024.
Between September 2023 and September 2024, Schmid operated the boiler at
Greenhaven Elementary, thereby meeting the necessary experience required before taking
the licensure exam. During this time, Schmid’s supervisor provided him with multiple
reminders about the availability of preparatory classes for the licensure exam. On
September 10, 2024, Schmid’s supervisor again reminded him that he needed to obtain the
Class C license to maintain his position, and that , beginning on September 12, 2024, he
would be eligible to take the licensure exam.
As of the extended deadline of October 1, 2024, Schmid still had not taken the
licensure exam. He therefore did not possess a Class C license. Greenhaven Elementary
suspended Schmid for one day for failure to meet the deadline but gave him an additional
extension until December 31, 2024.
On December 3, 2024, Greenhaven Elementary sent Schmid a letter to remind him
that he needed to obtain the Class C license by the end of the month. On December 11,
Schmid responded to his supervisor by email, advising that he planned to take a preparatory
4
class for the licensure exam the following summer. Based on Schmid’s representation that
he would not take the licensure exam before the twice -extended December 31 deadline,
Greenhaven Elementary gave Schmid a notice of intent to discharge and placed him on
paid suspension on December 17, 2024. The notice listed two reasons for discharge: failure
to obtain the Class C license and insubordination stemming from Schmid’s statements that
the license was unnecessary. On February 1, 2025, Greenhaven Elementary placed Schmid
on indefinite, unpaid suspension. This is considered his discharge date pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 5(b) (2024).
Schmid applied for unemployment benefits. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that Schmid was ineligible
for unemployment benefits because Greenhaven Elementary discharged him for
employment misconduct. Schmid administratively appealed.
At an evidentiary hearing, the ULJ heard testimony from Schmid, the district
superintendent, and Schmid’s supervisor. The ULJ also received exhibits, including emails
and letters. Several days after the hearing, the ULJ issued its order determining that Schmid
was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was discharged for employment
misconduct. In the decision, the ULJ made credibility determinations, finding that
“[o]verall, Schmid lacked credibility,” and his testimony was “unreliable” because he
“frequently avoided answering straightforward questions by giving nonresponsive answers
or answers to questions that had not been asked.”
Relevant to this appeal, the ULJ found that Greenhaven Elementary discharged
Schmid because “Schmid refused to take steps toward obtaining the Class C license by
5
December 31, 2024,” and “insubordination; i.e., the employer believed that since
December 17, 2024, Schmid continued to contact school board members about his dispute
with the employer over the Class C license.” The ULJ expressly found that “Schmid was
not discharged for any other reason.” The ULJ determined that “[t]he Hibbing public
schools had the right to expect that Schmid would take steps toward obtaining the Class C
license. This expectation was reasonable because it was contained in the job descr iption,
and the employer reminded Schmid about this many times.” The ULJ concluded that
Schmid’s failure to obtain the license “was a serious violation of the standards of behavior
the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee,” and thus Schmid was
discharged for employment misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Schmid filed a request for reconsideration. His arguments largely repeated those he
presented during the evidentiary hearing. He also argued that the school board mishandled
his official employment separation at a June 2025 meeting. The ULJ determined that
Schmid’s arguments were either made during the evidentiary hearing or were not relevant
to the issue before the ULJ such that “Schmid [had] not provided any inf ormation or
arguments that require changing the decision or ordering another hearing.” In a n order of
affirmation, the ULJ upheld Schmid’s ineligibility to receive unemployment benefits,
concluding that it was “factually and legally correct.”
Schmid appeals by writ of certiorari.
DECISION
When a ULJ has denied an applicant unemployment benefits, appellate courts —on
review—may affirm the decision, remand it for further proceedings, or reverse or modify
6
it “if the substantial rights of the [relator] may have been prejudiced because the findings,
inferences, conclusion, or decision” are, among other reasons, unsupported by substantial
evidence, affected by an error of law, or arbitrary and capricious. Min n. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d) (2024).
Unemployment benefits provide financial assistance to individuals discharged from
employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc ., 796 N.W.2d
312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). Employees discharged because of
“employment misconduct” are ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2024). “Employment misconduct” is defined by statute as “any
intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that i s a serious
violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of
the employee.” Id., subd. 6(a) (2024). Generally, an employee’s refusal to comply with
an employer’s reasonable policy is considered 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).
In this case, the ULJ found that Greenhaven Elementary discharged Schmid due to
his failure to obtain required licensure and insubordination. The ULJ determined that these
acts constitute disqualifying employment misconduct. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6
(2024) (defining employment misconduct). On appeal, it appears that Schmid challenges
the ULJ’s findings related to the reason for his termination. Schmid argues that the ULJ
should have found that Greenhaven Elementary laid him off because of alleged districtwide
7
budget cuts rather than his failure to obtain required licensure or insubordination.3 Schmid
also contends that the ULJ erred in determining that he was discharged for misconduct.
As a preliminary matter, Schmid’s argument regarding budget cuts is presented for
the first time on appeal and therefore the ULJ could not and did not consider it. “ A
reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were
presented [to] and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” Thiele
v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted); see also Ward v. Delta
Airlines, 973 N.W.2d 649, 653 (Minn. App. 2022) (applying Thiele to an argument not
presented to or considered by a ULJ), rev. denied (Minn. June 21, 2022). Because the ULJ
did not address this argument in its decision, it is not properly before us. Accordingly, we
decline to address it.
We next turn to the issue of Schmid’s discharge. We interpret Schmid as implicit ly
arguing that the ULJ erred in determining that he was discharged for employment
misconduct. The employer’s reason for discharging an employee presents a question of
fact for the ULJ to resolve. See Harringer v. AA Portable Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc.,
379 N.W.2d 222, 223- 24 (Minn. App. 1985) . When the reason for the discharge is

3 In his brief to our court, Schmid appears to quote from several news sources that discuss
“budget cuts” made by the school board and a purported memorandum authored by
Schmid’s supervisor discussing a “budget deficit.” These documents are not contained in
the record on appeal, and thus we do not consider them. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01
(“The documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings,
if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases. ”). It is also worth noting that the
dates Schmid attributes to these articles postdate his discharge by several months. This
timing undermines Schmid’s argument that his discharge was due to any layoffs based on
districtwide budget cuts.
8
disputed, the ULJ must review and weigh the evidence and assess credibility to determine
the reasons for discharge. Id.; see also Scheunemann v. Radisson S. Hotel , 562 N.W.2d
32, 34 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that the fact -finder is “obligated to weigh the evidence,
determine credibility, and make a determination on the reasons for the discharge”).
Appellate courts then review the ULJ’s “factual findings in the light most favorable to the
decision and should not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that
reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg, 796 N.W.2d at 315 (quotation omitted).
On December 17, 2024, Greenhaven Elementary expressed its intent to discharge
Schmid in a letter, explaining that:
In July 2022, you accepted the position of fireman
custodian at Greenhaven Elementary School. The position of
fireman custodian required that you obtain a 2nd Class C boiler
license within thirteen months of August 3, 2022. It has been
approximately twe nty-nine months since you accepted the
position, and you still have not obtained the required license
after having several opportunities to do so. As a result, you are
unqualified for, and incompetent to perform, the position of
fireman custodian at Green haven Elementary School.
The letter also discussed “insubordination and misconduct in [Schmid’s] communications”
as a basis for termination. The superintendent’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing
was consistent with the reasons given in this letter. For example, the super intendent
testified that Schmid’s failure to obtain “the licensure [was] definitely the primary factor”
in the school district’s decision to terminate his employment, but “a contributing factor”
was “Schmid’s attitude and . . . the very slow nature he took in pursuing any type of
licensure.” This evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s factual finding that Schmid was
9
discharged because of his failure to obtain required licensure and insubordination.
Accordingly, we will not disturb this finding. Id.
We affirm the ULJ’s decision that Schmid was discharged for employee
misconduct. As a result, Schmid was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.