Cited by

Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc. , d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).

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 Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N “Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.” (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 Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).

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

(“[T]he focus of the [employment misconduct] inquiry is the employee’s conduct, not that of the employer.”).

Appellate courts review the ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb the findings if “there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

“Whether an employee’s abse nteeism and tardiness amounts to a serious violation of the standards of behavior an em ployer has a right to expect depends on the circumstances of each case.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.

Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.

Ctr., d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016), and will not distur b them “as long as th ere is evidence that reasonably tends to sustain those findings.”

Finally, relator states that Holiday should have enga ged in “corrective[,] not punitive action resulting in loss of full time employment.” “[T]he focus of the inquiry [in an unemployment benefits case] is the employ ee’s conduct, not that of the employer.”

We review the ULJ’s findings of fact in the “light most favorable to the decision” and will not dist urb the findings if “there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

“Whether 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.”

We review the ULJ’s finding s of fact in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb the findings if “there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.”

We review “the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision an d [will] not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” (quotation omitted).

“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 ., d 312, 317 (Minn. 2011).

We view “the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision and [will] not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” (quotation omitted).

We review the ULJ’s findings of fact “in the light most favorable to the decision” to determine whether “there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , (quotation omitted).

Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc.

Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc. , d 312, 317 (Minn. 2011).

” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , (quotation omitted).

see also Winkler v. Park Refuse Serv., Inc., (stating that absence from work under circumstances within the control of the employee can constitute employment misconduct).

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

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

Appellate courts “will narrowly construe the disqualification provisions of the statute in li ght of their remedial nature, as well as the 4 policy that unemployment compensation is paid only to those persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. , (quotation omitted).

4 question of fact and law.” (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).

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

The disqualification provisions are narrowly construed in light of their remedial nature and “the policy that unemployment compensation is paid only to those persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).

6(e) (2016); see Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (noting that the statutory definition is exclusive); Jenkins v. Am.

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

Appellate courts “review the ULJ’s factual findings in the light most favorable to the decision.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., (quotation omitted).

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

3 DECISION “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).