Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 281 N.W.2d 879.

50 citing documents.

Scott Souter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
rogram, attended AA meetings, had an AA sponsor, and did not have “any alcohol-related discipline or alcohol-related behavioral issues while working for Fastenal.” Souter also argues that “the fact that [he] relapsed and drove under the influence on June 29, 2016 , is immaterial to an analysis of his earlier efforts to control his problem.” He relies on Moeller v. Minn. Dep’t of Transp ., and Hein, d at 44.
Christine M. Berglund, Relator v. Kozlak's Royal Oak Rest Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christine M. Berglund, Relator v. Kozlak's Royal Oak Rest Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes that absenteeism may qualify as misconduct, Moeller v. Minn. Dep’t of Transp., although “[w]hether an employee’s absenteeism and tardiness amounts to a serious violation of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect depends on the circumstances of each case.” Stagg, d at 316.
Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Board of Minneapolis 563 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Kalberg v. Park & Recreation Board of Minneapolis 563 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(observing that the “consistent efforts” clause, added to the serious illness provision in 1980, “codified the import of Moeller ” and declaring that the clause “requires the Commissioner to evaluate the claimant’s efforts, not the result.”); Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transp., (holding that it is unreasonable to require total abstinence of an alcoholic person, even after treatment and observing that alcoholism is a “chronic illness characterized by remissions and exacerbations”).
Maloney v. Dakota County Receiving Center, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Maloney v. Dakota County Receiving Center, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 402 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(stating that client was subject to “hospitalization in the Hennepin County Detoxification Receiving Center”); Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transp., (stating that appellant “was again hospitalized in a detoxification center”).
Hein v. Gresen Division 552 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Hein v. Gresen Division 552 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transp.
Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1994
Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. 518 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 1994
Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transp.
Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Peksa v. Fairview-Southdale Hosp. 512 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Markel v. City of Circle Pines 479 N.W.2d 382 Minn. 1992
Independent School District No. 709 v. Hansen 412 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Independent School District No. 709 v. Hansen 412 N.W.2d 320 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
A : The Commissioner in the instant case held that the employee had not made a reasonable effort to retain his employment because he deliberately began drinking again, even though he was aware of his illness and the necessary treatment.
Umlauf v. Gresen Manufacturing 393 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Umlauf v. Gresen Manufacturing 393 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Torgerson v. Goodwill Industries, Inc. 391 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In addition, that such absences may constitute misconduct even though the employee is addicted to alcohol.
Kemp v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 385 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kemp v. U.S. Department of Agriculture 385 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Winkler v. Park Refuse Service, Inc. 361 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project.
Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Neihart v. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 357 N.W.2d 130 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Little v. Larson Bus Service 352 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transp.
In Re Petition for Admission to the Minnesota State Bar Ex Rel. Haukebo 352 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1984
In Re Petition for Admission to the Minnesota State Bar Ex Rel. Haukebo 352 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 1984
and cases cited therein.
Hirt v. Lakeland Bakeries 348 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hirt v. Lakeland Bakeries 348 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Moeller v. Minnesota Dep’t of Transportation
Leslin v. County of Hennepin 347 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
Leslin v. County of Hennepin 347 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1984
That section provides in part that an employee shall not be disqualified from receiving benefits for misconduct if “[t]he individual is separated from employment due to his own serious *279 illness provided that such individual has made reasonable efforts to retain his employment.” this court applied that provision where an employee was discharged for misconduct due to alcoholism.
Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 345 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 345 N.W.2d 803 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
and cases from other jurisdictions and held that an employee, discharged for failing to notify his employer of his intended absence from work on four occasions in one year contrary to employer policy, was discharged for misconduct.
Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing 343 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing 343 N.W.2d 683 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that repeated absences from work without good cause and without prior notice constitute misconduct even when those absences are due to alcoholism, because such absences evidence a willful disregard of the employer’s interests.
Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Smith v. American Indian Chemical Dependency Diversion Project 343 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
held that an alcoholic’s failure to report for work or to notify his employer was misconduct within the meaning of Minn.Stat.
Edwards v. Yellow Freight Systems 342 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Edwards v. Yellow Freight Systems 342 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by