This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A15-0046

Denise M. Blomker,

Relator,

vs.

U. S. Federal Employees,

Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

Filed August 24, 2015

Affirmed

Toussaint, Judge*

Department of Employment and Economic Development 

File No. 32577376-3

Denise M. Blomker (pro se appellant)

U. S. Federal Employees (respondent)

Lee B. Nelson, Tim Schepers, Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent DEED)

Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and 

Toussaint, Judge. 

 

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to 

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. 
2

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Judge

Relator Denise Blomker challenges the unemployment-law judge’s (ULJ) 

determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was 

terminated for employment misconduct. Because of relator’s March 25, 2014 conduct, 

grabbing and twisting her supervisor’s arm, and because relator was warned, but 

continued to copy upper management in e-mails, the ULJ’s determination that relator was 

terminated for misconduct is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

We will affirm a ULJ determination if “[t]he ULJ’s findings are supported by 

substantial evidence and provide the statutorily required reason for her credibility 

determination.” Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless Servs., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Minn. 

App. 2007) (setting out factors to consider in making credibility determinations). 

Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact. Id. We review a 

ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision. Schmidgall v. FilmTec 

Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002). “As a result, this court will not disturb the 

ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Peterson v. Nw. 

Airlines, Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 

2008).

The purpose of chapter 268 is to assist those who are unemployed through no fault 

of their own. Minn. Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (2014). A benefits applicant who was 

discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. 
3

Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4(1) (2014). Employment misconduct includes “any intentional, 

negligent, or indifferent conduct . . . that displays clearly . . . 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)(1) (2014). 

Refusing to follow “an employer’s reasonable policies and requests” generally 

constitutes employment misconduct. Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804. “[A]n employee 

who intentionally physically contacts another in anger engages in employment 

misconduct,” even if the conduct is not extreme. Potter v. N. Empire Pizza, Inc., 805 

N.W.2d 872, 877 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Nov. 15, 2011). In Potter, 

this court concluded that “angry physical contact” such as poking, even if lasting “only a 

moment,” supports an employment-misconduct determination. Id. at 875-77 (quotation 

marks omitted).

Relator argues that she was discharged as retaliation for numerous prior Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaints alleged against her employer,

the Department of the Interior–Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI). DOI stated that it 

discharged relator for inappropriate conduct on March 25, 2014 when she inappropriately 

grabbed her supervisor, and for repeatedly failing to follow a supervisory directive to stop 

copying upper management on e-mails “unless [upper management personnel] 

specifically asked to be copied.” The ULJ determined that relator was discharged for 

insubordination and inappropriate conduct for failing to follow supervisory directives and 

inappropriately grabbing her supervisor during an argument on March 25. 
4

Both relator and DOI testified that relator touched her supervisor, B.J., while they 

argued on March 25, 2014. Relator attempted to defend her conduct, testifying that she 

grabbed B.J.’s finger because she was “afraid for [her] own physical wellbeing.” 

Relator’s supervisor testified that relator grabbed her forearm with both hands and 

twisted. The ULJ found B.J.’s testimony more credible than relator’s testimony and 

found B.J.’s testimony was supported by the evidence in the record.1 Upon careful 

review of the evidence submitted regarding the incident, including affidavits by DOI 

employees who heard portions of the argument, we conclude that there is ample evidence 

in the record that relator touched her supervisor in anger. We therefore conclude that the 

ULJ did not err in determining that relator was terminated for employment misconduct 

for inappropriate conduct on March 25, 2014.

The ULJ also determined that relator’s refusal to follow supervisory instructions 

not to copy upper management “was insubordinate, disruptive to the work place and 

displayed clearly a serious disregard of [DOI’s] interest and of standards of behavior they 

had a right to expect of [relator] as an employee.” Relator concedes that her supervisor 

had directed her not to copy upper management when they did not need to be involved. 

Relator testified that her former supervisor sent “several emails and letters too I think she 

had put down that I needed to cease and desist sending emails that pertained to things that 

were going on in migratory birds to upper management.” Relator also testified that she 

had been previously suspended for not following this directive. 

 

1 Regardless of the reason, relator intentionally physically contacted her supervisor in 

anger, which is employment misconduct. See Potter, 805 N.W.2d at 877. The ULJ also 

determined that relator “failed to provide good cause for her conduct.” 
5

Relator’s conduct demonstrates that she intentionally disregarded directives given 

to her by her supervisor. DOI contended that the directive not to needlessly copy upper 

management was reasonable because it “caused questions and confusion on the part of 

the recipients of these emails” because they were not sure whether they needed to 

respond or not and why they, in particular, were being copied. The ULJ’s factual 

findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including relator’s own 

testimony, and we conclude that the ULJ did not err in concluding relator’s conduct 

constituted employment misconduct. See Schmidgall, 644 N.W.2d at 804 (stating that 

refusing to follow an employer’s reasonable request generally constitutes employment 

misconduct).

Affirmed.