Cited by

And regardless of other employees’ practices, “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.”

But a “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.”

But “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” see also Sivertson v. Sims Sec., Inc. , (“Whether or not other employees violated [the employer’s] same rules and were disciplined or discharged is not relevant.”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

20, 1986); (explaining violation of workplace rules by other employees is not a defense to employment misconduct).

And a “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co.

This court affirmed the decision finding the employee ineligible after concluding that the employee’s conduct demonstrated a “substantial disregard” for the employer’s interest because the “employer has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees handling the employer’s money.” Id.; (concluding that employee’s violation of employer’s rules that resulted in a loss of money to the employer was employment misconduct).

As pointed out by DEED, this court has held that “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” 8

But a “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co.

“Violation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” Dean v. Allied Aviation Fueling Co.

And we have stated that “[v]iolation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.” see also Sivertson, d at 871 (stating that “[w]hether or not other employees violated [employer’s] rules and were disciplined or discharged is not relevant here” and that “[t]he sole question before this court is whether [relator]’s violation of [employer’s] rules constituted miscon

20, 1986); (“Violation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.”).

see also Sivertson v. Sims Sec., Inc., d 868, 871 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that whether or not other employees violated same rules and were disciplined or discharged was not relevant to the present case), review denied (Minn. Aug.

20, 1986); (“Violation of an employer’s rules by other employees is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.”).

In addition, an employer is not required to give a warning before discharging an employee for employment misconduct, and similar conduct by co-workers “is not a valid defense to a claim of misconduct.”

s that “[a] single incident involving money handling procedures has a serious adverse impact on the employer even though there is no economic impact.” And DiMa urges this court to adopt a bright-line rule to conclude that violations of “money handling procedures are ...[,] per se, misconduct.” to support its argument.

see Smith v. Employers’ Overload Co.

(citing Smith v. Employers’ Overload Company, ).

(citing Smith v. Employer’s Overload Co., ).

(citing Smith v. Employers’ Overload Co., ).

for rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986); Ruzynski v. Cub Foods, Inc.