COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
 
 
 Present:  Judges Benton, Humphreys and Retired Judge Duff?
 
 
 SAMUEL T. BISTAWROS
 			MEMORANDUM OPINION?? BY
 v.	Record No. 2207-00-4	PER CURIAM
 								   FEBRUARY 20, 2001
 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND
  MINNIELAND PRIVATE DAY SCHOOL
 
 
 	FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
 William D. Hamblen, Judge
 
 		(Samuel T. Bistawros, on briefs), pro se.
 
 		(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Lisa J. 
 Rowley, Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. 
 Stahl, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), 
 for appellee Virginia Employment Commission.
 
 No brief for appellee Minnieland Private Day 
 School.
 
 
 	Samuel T. Bistawros appeals a final order of the Circuit 
 Court of Prince William County affirming the decision of the 
 Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) to disqualify him from 
 receiving unemployment benefits.  Based upon the administrative 
 record of proceedings and argument, the circuit court held that 
 evidence in the record supported the VEC's findings of fact and 
 that the VEC correctly concluded, as a matter of law, that 
 Bistawros was discharged for misconduct in connection with his 
 work for Minnieland Private Day School and disqualified for 
 benefits under Code  60.2-618.2.
 I.  VEC'S FACTUAL FINDINGS
 	The record establishes that Bistawros worked as a teacher 
 for Minnieland from March 22, 1999 to December 28, 1999.  
 Minnieland contracts with the Prince William County Public 
 Schools to provide before-and-after-school care for children.  
 Minnieland's employment handbook provides that employees may be 
 dismissed without warning for insubordination and with warning 
 for using threatening language.  On September 30, 1999, 
 Bistawros was involved in an argument with the site director of 
 the school to which he was assigned.  Bistawros accused the 
 director of practicing witchcraft on him.  The next day, 
 Bistawros' supervisor met with Bistawros to discuss the problem 
 and told Bistawros that the site director felt threatened by the 
 accusations.  The supervisor explained that Bistawros would be 
 transferred to another school.  Because there was not one school 
 to which he could be assigned, Bistawros was assigned to one 
 school in the morning and another in the afternoon.  
 	On October 6, 1999, Bistawros' supervisors met with him 
 after having received a complaint from one of the schools that 
 Bistawros was talking on the phone when he was assigned to 
 supervise children.  During that meeting, Bistawros was told not 
 to discuss witchcraft at work.  On December 20, 1999, Bistawros 
 accused a school custodian of practicing witchcraft.  Minnieland 
 discharged Bistawros for talking about witchcraft despite direct 
 orders not to and for confronting school personnel when he had 
 been instructed to bring his concerns to Minnieland if he was 
 having problems.
 	"On review, [we] must consider the evidence in the light 
 most favorable to the finding by the Commission."  Virginia 
 Employment Comm'n v. Peninsula Emergency Physicians, Inc., 4 Va. 
 App. 621, 626, 359 S.E.2d 552, 554-55 (1987).  Code  60.2-625 
 sets forth the standard of "judicial review" for appeals from 
 the decisions of the VEC.  "[I]n such cases . . . the 
 Commission's findings of fact, if supported by evidence and in 
 the absence of fraud, are conclusive."  Lee v. Virginia 
 Employment Comm'n, 1 Va. App. 82, 85, 335 S.E.2d 104, 106 
 (1985).  Upon our review, we conclude that the VEC's findings of 
 fact are supported by evidence in the record and are therefore 
 binding on appeal.
 II.  WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT
 	Code  60.2-618.2 provides for disqualification from 
 receipt of unemployment benefits if the VEC finds that the 
 employee was discharged for work misconduct.  "However, to 
 establish misconduct employer had the burden of proving that the 
 employee deliberately or willfully violated a company rule."  
 Bell Atlantic v. Matthews, 16 Va. App. 741, 745, 433 S.E.2d 30, 
 32 (1993).
 [A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct 
 connected with his work" when he 
 deliberately violates a company rule 
 reasonably designed to protect the 
 legitimate business interests of his 
 employer, or when his acts or omissions are 
 of such a nature or so recurrent as to 
 manifest a willful disregard of those 
 interests and the duties and obligations he 
 owes his employer.
 
 Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va. 609, 611, 249 
 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978).  "'[O]nce the employer has borne [this] 
 burden . . . [it] shifts to the employee to prove circumstances 
 in mitigation of his or her conduct.'"  Carter v. Extra's, Inc., 
 14 Va. App. 535, 539, 420 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1992) (citation 
 omitted).  "'Whether an employee's behavior constitutes 
 misconduct, however, is a mixed question of law and fact 
 reviewable by this court on appeal.'"  Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 
 Inc. v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 24 Va. App. 377, 384, 482 
 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1997) (citation omitted).
 	Bistawros was discharged for accusing his co-workers of 
 practicing witchcraft.  Bistawros had been warned by his 
 supervisor that the licensing agency for daycare programs had 
 expressed concerns about his earlier accusation.  He was also 
 warned that further discussions of witchcraft or voodoo could 
 lead to his discharge.  The VEC concluded that Bistawros' 
 actions had been insubordinate and amounted to misconduct.  
 	"An employee's refusal to obey a reasonable directive of 
 his or her employer may constitute misconduct so as to 
 disqualify that employee from unemployment benefits."  Helmick 
 v. Economic Dev. Corp., 14 Va. App. 853, 859, 421 S.E.2d 23, 26 
 (1992).  Indeed, we have previously held that insubordination 
 can constitute misconduct connected with work.  See Wood v. 
 Virginia Employment Comm'n, 20 Va. App. 514, 518-19, 458 S.E.2d 
 319, 321 (1995).  Bistawros' violation of a direct command not 
 to discuss witchcraft in the schools constituted misconduct. 
 	Although Bistawros was instructed to contact Minnieland 
 first with complaints of this nature, Bistawros yelled at a 
 school janitor in front of school officials.  Bistawros' 
 insubordinate refusal to obey a reasonable directive constituted 
 misconduct.  
 IV.  MITIGATION
 	"[T]he burden of proving mitigating circumstances rests 
 upon the employee."  Kennedy's Piggly Wiggly Stores v. Cooper, 
 14 Va. App. 701, 705, 419 S.E.2d 278, 280-81 (1992).  "Absent 
 evidence to 'explain or justify' such misconduct and 'show 
 mitigating circumstances, the commission must find that benefits 
 are barred.'"  Carter, 14 Va. App. at 540, 420 S.E.2d at 716 
 (citations omitted).  In mitigation, Bistawros makes accusations 
 of fraud, prejudice, and conspiracy.  Bistawros argues that he 
 was the victim of witchcraft performed by Minnieland in 
 conjunction with Egyptian intelligence.  However, Bistawros 
 provides no factual basis for the allegations and does not point 
 to any evidence to support his contention that the VEC and the 
 circuit court were biased against him.  The circuit court upheld 
 the VEC finding that no mitigating circumstances have been 
 proven.  We find no error in these decisions.  Accordingly, the 
 decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.
 											Affirmed. 
      ? Retired Judge Charles H. Duff took part in the 
 consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code 
  17.1-400(D).
 
 ?? Pursuant to Code  17.1-413, this opinion is not 
 designated for publication. 
  
 
  
  
 
 - 4 -