Cited by

We will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).

Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.

317 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that an employee’s pattern of breaching a known policy is a serious violation).

The ULJ’s findings will not be disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

Unemployment benefits provide financial assistance to individuals discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc ., d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).

Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” (quotation omitted).

But we review a ULJ’s factual findings for clear error and will not disturb those findings “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.

omplaint,” that investigation did “not relieve [Johnson] from her own responsibilities toward [Sevita] for purposes of analyzing whether [she was] eligible to receive unemployment benefits.” Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court has instructed that, in considering employment misconduct, “the focus of the inquiry is the employee’s conduct, not that of the employer .” d 312, 316 (Minn. 2011).

6 “Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).

4 DECISION We review the ULJ’s findings of fact “in the light most favorable to the decision” and we will not “disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

See Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.

And t hese findings will not be disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 7

Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” (quotation omitted).

And these findings will not be disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

-17 (Minn. 2011) (holding that employee discharged for excessive absenteeism and tardiness committed employment misconduct).

7 Unemployment benefits are paid only to persons who are “unemployed through no fault of their own.” (quotation omitted).

Unemployment benefits are intended to provide financial assistance to persons who have been discharged from employment “through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage 4 Place Inc., (quotation omitted).

5 of the standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect depends on the circumstances of each case.”

See Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (appellate courts review ULJ’s factual findings in light most favorable to decision and do not disturb those findings if supported by record); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.

“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).

Stagg v. Vintage Place 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.

Id.; Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.

3 DECISION In unemployment-benefit cases, we review “the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision” and we do not “disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” (quotation omitted).

“In unemployment benefit cases, the appellate court is to review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and should not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” (quotation omitted).

Those findings are not disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.

Misconduct “Determining whether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct is a question of law that we review de novo.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).

“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).

Those findings are not disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc.

We “review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and should not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).