Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller, 390 N.W.2d 415.

28 citing documents.

Antonio F. Bragg, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Del Dee Foods, (stating that a single absence from work may constitute misconduct when the employee has not received permission to be absent).
Jackson Benson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And an employer generally “has a right to expect an employee to work when 7 scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted).
Andre Binns, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Gopher’s policy requiring management approval prior to leaving work early is not unreasonable because an employer “has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, (citation omitted).
Antonio Johnson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An employer generally “has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, 6 (quotation omitted).
Kyle E. Kirchner, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And an employer generally “has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted).
Aries Williams, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An employer generally “has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted).
Abdirahman Warsame, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Failure to report to work is misconduct.” Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller
David Luckow, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted).
Latonia Rolbiecki, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court has previous ly held that “excep t in certain limited circumstances, an employee engages in miscondu ct if [she] is absent even once without notifying [her] employer.” Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller , see Evenson v. Omnetic’s, (holding that repeated tardiness, pa rticularly when co mbined with warni ngs, is employment misconduct).
Hussein Elseweissy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We have held “that except in certain limited circumstances, an employee engages in misconduct if he is absent even once withou t notifying his employer.” Del Dee Foods, Inc. v. Miller , d 415, 418 (Minn. App. 1986).
Yitagesu Wolde, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Yitagesu Wolde, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Additionally, an “employer has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted).
Katie Kissner, Relator v. Restore 24, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Katie Kissner, Relator v. Restore 24, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An employer “has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled,” Del Dee Foods, (quotation omitted), and a “right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism,” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
Cecilia Shaw, Relator v. First Advantage Background Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cecilia Shaw, Relator v. First Advantage Background Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An “employer has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled.” Del Dee Foods, -18 (Minn. App. 1986).
Dan Delk, III, Relator v. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dan Delk, III, Relator v. Pan-O-Gold Baking Co. (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
And generally, a single unexcused absence from work may constitute a serious violation of the standards an employer has the right to reasonably expect, unless the absence was “beyond the employee’s control and did not display a disregard for employment.” -43 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Del Dee Foods, -18 (Minn. App. 1986) (discussing several Minnesota cases that have held that a single absence may constitute misconduct).
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lonn H. Luhman, Relator v. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark M. Lazo, Relator v. Moguls F & B LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mark M. Lazo, Relator v. Moguls F & B LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[E]xcept in certain limited circumstances, an employee engages in misconduct if he is absent even once without notifying his employer.” Del Dee Foods
Hanson v. Crestliner Inc. 772 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Hanson v. Crestliner Inc. 772 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
See Del Dee Foods, (stating that a single absence from work without permission may constitute misconduct); (stating that an employer has a right to expect an employee to work when scheduled).
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. 520 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Absenteeism has been recognized as evidence of misconduct; “[e]ven a single unexcused absence may constitute misconduct.” Del Dee Foods, (quoting Blau v. Masters Restaurant Assocs., Inc., ).
Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Nelson v. Star Tribune 445 N.W.2d 864 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See e.g., Del Dee Foods, (employee committed misconduct by failing to work volunteered overtime); (employee who refused to work a shift committed misconduct); Colburn, (employee who deliberately left work before she was authorized committed miscon

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by