In Broyles v. Aeroquip Corp, 176 Mich App 175; 438 NW2d 888 (1989), in a matter of first impression, the Court held that the use of vulgar language can constitute misconduct. The Court stated: In looking at the use of vulgar or abusive language, we conclude that the use of such language can constitute employee misconduct. Certainly such conduct is wilful and deliberate since the employee can choose which words to use and, we believe, it violates the standards of behavior that an employer can reasonably expect from his employees. That is, we believe an employer has the right to expect his employees to act with a certain amount of civility towards management personnel and, for that matter, fellow employees. Broyles, supra, 176 Mich App 178-179. The Court cautioned that the question whether the use of offensive language constitutes misconduct is to be evaluated based upon the totality of the circumstances. Evidence that the employer condoned the employee's use of vulgar or abusive language can militate against a finding of misconduct. The Court explained: . . . Rather, the totality of the circumstances of the case must be considered in determining if the use of vulgar or abusive language constitutes misconduct. Thus, we must look to the words used and the context in which the words are spoken in determining whether an employee has engaged in misconduct. In looking at the totality of the circumstances, various considerations should be taken into account. Whether the use of vulgar or abusive language constitutes misconduct depends upon a variety of factors, including considerations such as whether the words were directed at a fellow employee, a supervisor, or a customer, whether the tone and context suggests an abusive intent or friendly badgering, whether the comments were made in a private conversation or in the presence of others, and whether such conduct has been condoned in the past. Broyles, supra, 176 Mich App 179.