Cited by

We have concluded, for example, that a n employment- misconduct determination w as supported by evidence that an employee was “ rude to customers, fellow employees, and supervisory personnel.” Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat ’l Bank, rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’ l Bank, rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986); see 9 also Pitzel v. Packaged Furniture & Carpet, –58 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “aggressive and offensive” behavior with customers is employment misconduct).

See, e.g. , Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank , (concluding that employment-misconduct determination “is sufficiently supported by the 7 evidence in the record of [employee’s] rudeness and insubordination”), rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

Servs., Inc., -31 (Minn. App. 2008) (overcharging); Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank , (rudeness), rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, rev. denied (Minn. 8 June 13, 1986); see also Pitzel v. Packaged Furniture & Carpet, -58 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that “aggressive and offensive” behavior with customers is employment misconduct).

See, e.g., Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, 605 (Minn. App. 1986) (reasoning that employee was insubordinate by saying to supervisor, “You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about”), rev. denied (Minn. June 13, 1986); (stating that “employer had a right to expect Tester to refrain f

See, (affirming finding of misconduct based on 7 evidence that employee walked off job despite supervisor’s instruction to remain) ; Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat ’l Bank, , 603, 605 (Minn. App. 1986) (reasoning that employee was insubordinate by saying to supervisor, “You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about”), review denied (Minn. June 13, 1986); ( stating that “ employer had a right to expect Tester to ref

See Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, d 602, 605 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding employee’s insubordination and rudeness toward customers, coworkers and supervisors before and after being placed on probation constituted misconduct), review denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

See, e.g., Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, (rudeness to customers, fellow employees, and supervisor constitutes misconduct), review denied (Minn. June 13, 1986); Snodgrass v. Oxford Props., Inc., (refusal to cooperate with supervisor or take directions constitutes misconduct).

See, e.g., Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, review denied (Minn. June 13, 1986) (rudeness to customers, fellow employees, and supervisor constitutes misconduct); Snodgrass v. Oxford Props., Inc., (refusal to cooperate with supervisor or take directions constitutes misconduct).

See Montgomery v. F & M Marquette Nat’l Bank, (concluding that evidence that employee became angry with a customer and “‛slammed’ down the phone” supported a finding of misconduct), review denied (Minn. June 13, 1986).

See Montgomery v. F & M Marquette National Bank, pet.