Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 118.

35 citing documents.

Abdirahman Warsame, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
Hussein Elseweissy, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
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
An employer also has a right to “establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism.” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
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 also has a right to “establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism.” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
Cameron Anderson v. North American Gear & Forge Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Cameron Anderson v. North American Gear & Forge Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Schmitz, d at 670-71 (describing burden-shifting requirement); see also Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., (upholding absenteeism as grounds for discharge from employment).
Jacqueline Crosser, Relator v. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacqueline Crosser, Relator v. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 for her job.” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., see also Evenson v. Omnetic’s, (holding that excessive tardiness or absences, particularly after warnings, may evidence employee’s disregard of employer’s interest).
Jesse Marshall, Relator v. St. John�s Lutheran Home of Albert Lea, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jesse Marshall, Relator v. St. John�s Lutheran Home of Albert Lea, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
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
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1 At oral arugment, DEED’s counsel argued that we should not only look at relator’s last absence, but we also must look at the “totality of the circumstances,” citing Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., as support.
Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
Hein v. PRECISION ASSOCIATES, INC. 609 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hein v. PRECISION ASSOCIATES, INC. 609 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
See Dachel v. Ortho Met, Inc., (affirming commissioner’s judgment that relator failed to show good cause to quit where job performance deficiencies justified demotion); see also Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., (holding that, despite lack of evidence that relator’s absenteeism was willful or deliberate, it was sufficiently chronic and excessive to demonstrate relator’s lack of concern for her job).
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
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., McLean v. Plastics, Inc.
Reddmann v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Reddmann v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc. 412 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kokesch cites Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., where we stated: Although there was no showing that Jones’ absenteeism was wilful or deliberate, it was sufficiently chronic and excessive to demonstrate a lack of concern by Jones for her job.
Matter of Recommendation for Discharge of Kelvie 384 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Gerr v. Target-Fridley 382 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Target claims that our decision in Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., indicates that chronic and excessive absenteeism may, as a matter of law, demonstrate a lack of concern for a job.
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McLean v. Plastics, Inc. 378 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In Jones v. Rosemount, Inc., , (Minn.Ct.App.1985), we stated: Although there was no showing that Jones’ absenteeism was willful or deliberate, it was sufficiently chronic and excessive to demonstrate a lack of concern by Jones for her job.
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. 374 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We have also indicated that an employer has the right “to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism.” Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.