Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf, 310 N.W.2d 80.

33 citing documents.

Ann R. Majerus, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Specifically , she relies on Thao v. Command Ctr., Inc. , Sunstar Foods Inc. v. Uhlendorf , ; Scott v. Photo Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 535, and Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc., .
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Thao v. Command Center, Inc. 824 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Generally, “a substantial pay reduction gives an employee good cause for quitting.” Scott v. Photo Ctr., Inc., 306 Minn. 535, 536 , Haugen v. Superior Dev., Inc., (holding that “caselaw consistently establishes that a substantial wage or hours reduction is good reason to quit”); (holding that “wage cuts of 21-26 percent unilaterally imposed by the employer” were so unreasonable that employees had no alternative but to leave, in the context of a lockout from employment).
Sykes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 789 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Sykes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 789 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Sunstar Foods, -85 (Minn.1981).
Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc. 696 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Johnson v. Walch & Walch, Inc. 696 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Sunstar Foods, -85 (Minn.1981); Danielson Mobil
Aaa Striping v. Mn. Dot 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
AAA Striping Service Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Aaa Striping v. Mn. Dot 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
AAA Striping Service Co. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation 681 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Rootes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 669 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Rootes v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 669 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp. 665 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, e.g., Sunstar Foods, -85 (Minn.1981) (holding 25% wage decrease constituted good cause to quit).
Cook v. Playworks 541 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Cook v. Playworks 541 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc. 528 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Sunstar Foods, the supreme court affirmed a determination that a reduction in wages of 21-26 percent was unreasonable, justifying the payment of unemployment compensation benefits.
Wood v. Menard, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Wood v. Menard, Inc. 490 N.W.2d 441 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf (20-25% pay reduction was substantial, but less than 15% was not sufficient to show good cause); Scott v. The Photo Center, Inc., 306 Minn. 535, 536 , -17 (1975) (change in pay from a fixed salary to a commission, resulting in a 25% pay reduction was substantial); McBride v. LeVasseu
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Sunstar Foods, (suggesting that a decrease in wages of less than 15% may not provide good cause to quit, whereas a decrease of more than 20% is sufficient).
Danielson Mobil, Inc. v. Johnson 394 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Danielson Mobil, Inc. v. Johnson 394 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moore v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota 385 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moore v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co. of Minnesota 385 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership 356 N.W.2d 658 Minn. 1984
Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf Crookston Cattle Co. v. Minnesota Dep’t of Natural Resources, Signal Delivery Service
Metropolitan Medical Center v. Richardville 354 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Metropolitan Medical Center v. Richardville 354 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Quest Foundry Company, [ 229 Minn. 131 ], Sunstar Foods v. Uhlendorf
Foy v. J.E.K. Industries 352 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Foy v. J.E.K. Industries 352 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sunstar Foods, Inc. v. Uhlendorf Scott v. The Photo Center, 306 Minn. 535

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by