Cited by

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

1a(a) (2024); see also Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc .

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

The difficulty with her argument is that we do not reweigh the ULJ’s credibility findings, see Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., and the ULJ here found that Coyne quit her position voluntarily rather than because of Dollar General’s alleged improper workplace pressure.

Whether an employee committed a particular act is a question of fact, and appellate courts “will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them .” Skarhus v. Davanni ’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).

6 We afford “deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni ’s Inc., see also Wilson v. Mortg.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., .

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

[and] we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006) (citations omitted).

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

“We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).

“We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

“We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).

Skarhus v. Davanni ’s Inc., d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006).

See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

[and] we will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).

8 determinations made by the ULJ.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citations omitted).

“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

(quoting Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., ).

Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , (quotation omitted) ; see also Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (“We view the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision, giving deference to the credibility determinations made by the ULJ.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

stimony to be more credible because it was “straightforward and plausible” while Jamison’s testimony was “exaggerated at times,” for example, by claiming that “there were multiple 30-day demos and the program cut out every 30 minutes throughout 6 her employment.” “Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the ULJ and will not be disturbed on appeal.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

See Skarhus v. Davanni’s, Inc., (providing that this court defers to credibility determinations by the ULJ).

2 We note that “[a] reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Because we defer to the ULJ’s credibility determinations, Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., we reject Scott’s contention that the ULJ’s findings were erroneous.

See Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (providing that this court defers to credibility decisions by the ULJ).

We review a ULJ’s findings of fact “in the light most favorable to the decision.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

“Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., (citation omitted).

“A reviewing court accords deference to a ULJ’s decision not to hold an additional hearing and will reverse that decision only for an abuse of discretion.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

“Whether the employee committed a particular act is a question of fact ,” but “whether the act committed by the employee constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law .” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., .

Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.

misconduct, arguing that Honeywell’s COVID- 19 policy requiring him to get and submit weekly COVID- 19 tests pursuant to his religious exemption from receiving the COVID- 19 vaccine amounted to “unlawful stipulations” and “required [him] to defy [his] religious faith.” 4 “Whether an employee committed employment misconduct is a mixed question of fact and law.” Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc.