Cited by

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

5 Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

Cunningham v. Wal- Mart Assocs., Inc.

“An employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

6(a) (Supp. 2019).1 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[a]s a genera l rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amount s to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , 4 (Minn. 2002); see also Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. , (indicating that “[a]n employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.”).

Cunningham v. Wal -Mart Assocs., Inc.

This court has held that “[a]n employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

This court has held that “[a]n employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

We conclude that the ULJ was within his discretion to not credit Carson’s belated assertion over Mertes’s sworn testi mony, not only in light of the usual deference due to a ULJ’s credibility determination, Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. , but also because Carso n’s statement is not in accord with his earlier testimony.

See Cunningham v. Wal -Mart Assocs., Inc. , (“Minnesota law allows an employer to esta blish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.”).

This court “gives deference to [a] ULJ’s credibility determinations.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., .

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

7( d)(5) (Supp. 2017); 2005 Minn. Laws ch. 112, art. 2, § 34, at 710; see also Cunningham v. Wal -Mart Assocs., (“Findings of fact will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record.”); Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc. , (“[W]e will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially sustains them.”).

6 7(d)(3)-(5) (Supp. 2017); see also Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assoc s., Inc., d 231, 234-35 (Minn. App. 2011).

We have held that “[a]n employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

“Whe ther an employee engaged in employment misconduct presents a mixed question of fact and law.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

“Whether an employee e ngaged in employment misconduct presents a mixed question of fact and law.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

An employer has the right “to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

1, 2008); (stating that “[f]indings of fact will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record”).

“An employee’s refusal to abide by the employer’s reasonable policies ordinarily constitutes employment misconduct.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Icenhower, d at 855 (quotation omitted); (stating that employers may “establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences,” a violation of which may constitute employment misconduct).

-07 (Minn. 2002) (holding that an employer’s policy to maintain a safe workplace is reasonable); Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., (stating that absence from work under circumstances within the control of the employee is misconduct sufficient to deny benefits).

7(d)(5) (emphasis added); see also Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., (stating that “[f]indings of fact will be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record” (emphasis added)).

Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

See also Minn. Stat. 5 “Minnesota law allows an employer to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2011).

“Minnesota law allows an employer to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assoc., Inc.

“Minnesota law allows an employer to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.”

Appellate courts review de novo as a question of law “whether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct,” Stagg, d at 315, but “[w]hether the employee committed a particular act is an issue of fact,” Cunningham v. Wal–Mart Assocs.

Appellate courts review de novo as a question of law “whether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct,” id., but “[w]hether the employee committed a particular act is an issue of fact,” Cunningham v. Wal–Mart Assocs.

“Minnesota law allows an employer to establish and enforce reasonable rules governing employee absences.” Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.

Appellate courts review de novo as a question of law “whether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct,” id., but “[w]hether the employee committed a particular act is an issue of fact,”