Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Kurtz Ex Rel. Gillman v. Lakes Medi Van, Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590.

61 citing documents.

Maureen A. Wobig, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Aaron Thevenot, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Dakota James Housman, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Inc., - 95 (Minn. 5 App. 2006).
Donald D. Kern, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Philljeral Glekiah, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Dr. Edward Bello, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., the applicant quit her job after a co-worker swore at her, intentionally let doors close on her, drove a forklift close to her in a restricted zone, startled her by kicking open a door, and threatened to hit her with a large metal object.
Jeffrey Zoss, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[H]arassment may constitute good reason if the employer has notice and fails to take timely and appropriate measures to prevent harassment by a co -worker.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Anne L Doering, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006).
Bryan Boysen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The standard applies “to the average man or woman, and not the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., (quotation omitted).
Janella Scott, Relator v. The Phoenix Residence, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When determining whether an average worker would quit their employment, the correct standard is “‘the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.’” Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Mfg., Inc., (quoting Ferguson v. Dep’t of Emp.
Raymond R. Holman, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., (stating that whether an employee’s concerns constitute a good reason to leave employment is judged by “the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive” (quotation omitted)).
Edwin A. Mathieu, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
It applies “to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Lora L. Aeliot, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And the standard is an objective one—i t applies “to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Rachel A. Grages, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Lonnie Moss, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cf. Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -93, 597 (Minn. App. 2006) (concluding that relator quit her job with good reason, and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits, where a coworker called her names, swore at her, and threatened her).
Jerrod Feist, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The standard applies to the “average” person, “and not the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg.
Clarence Walker, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It applies “to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg.
Michael Olson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
It assumes that the wo rker is “average” and not “supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg .
Michael Sirek, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., (quotation omitted).
Byram J. Nash, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
It applies “to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., (quotation omitted).
Michael DePaul, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Whether an employee’s issue constitutes a good reason to quit is judged by “the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Charles R. Stenger, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., (quotation 7 omitted).
Bruce K. Rankila, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Bobbi Vander Veer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. , .
Bernice Giernot, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whether an employee’s concerns constitute a good reason to leave employment is judged by “the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’ g & Mfg., Inc. , (quotation omitted).
Jeffrey Pernu, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But this court’s conclusions must be “based on findings that have the requisite evidentiary support.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Patricia Trelstad, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Michael Schemel, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. , (“When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, we defer to the decision-maker’s ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations .”); (“The function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying err
Carl Jackson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether an employee has been discharged or voluntarily quit is a question of fact.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., (quotation omitted).
Anthony Browne, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc. , (“When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, we defer to the decision-maker’s ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations.”).
Distinguished James Duffy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The cases on which he relies , Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg ., d 590 (Minn. App. 2006) and Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. , , are distinguishable because they concerned employers that were given an opportunity to correct the adverse condition.
Hamida Jama, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The determination that an employee quit without good reason attributable to 5 the employer is a legal conclusion, but the conclusion must be based on findings that have the requisite evidentiary support.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Loria Quade, Relator v. City of Minneapolis, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Inc., -95 (Minn. App. 2006).
Nikol Dowls, Relator v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Velma Ostman, Relator v. Range Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Rosevelt Beal, Relator v. Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006) (“When witness credibility and conflicting evidence are at issue, we defer to the decision-maker’s ability to weigh the evidence and make those determinations.”).
Roger Stoltz, Relator v. SMSC Gaming Enterprises - Mystic Lake Casino, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Lee Xiong, Relator v. Water Gremlin Co. (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Nita Posey, Relator v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 879 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cf. Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., (mentioning employer’s policy that an absence of one day without notifying the employer constituted termination without notice).
Orin Vann, Relator v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC - Texas Roadhouse, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Loria Quade, Relator v. City of Minneapolis, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -95 (Minn. App. 2006).
Crystal Longtin, Relator v. EEG, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Dean M. Haupt, Relator v. Menard, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -95 (Minn. App. 2006).
Crystal Sayen, Relator v. North Hennepin Community College, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -93 (Minn. App. 2006).
Mitchell Borchardt, Relator v. J.R.'s Tech Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Lamont P. Mays, Relator v. Rosenbauer Motors, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Wajiha Shirin Shah, Relator v. IMI's MN, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Legal conclusions must be based on findings that have “the requisite evidentiary support.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006).
Ahmed Ghanim, Relator v. FedEx Kinko's Office and Print Services, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., -95 (Minn. App. 2006); -39 (Minn. App. 2002) (reviewing application of the medical-necessity exception de novo).
Lorraine Rosenthal, Relator v. Cardinal of Minnesota, Ltd., Department of Employment & Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.
Kennedy N. Mogere, Relator v. Minnesota Masonic Home Northridge (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by