Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801.

305 citing documents.

Michael P. Larson v. Minnesota State College Southeast - Winona, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Pamela Wilhelm v. Fairview Health Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
David Jacobs v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualif ying misconduct.”
Yaohua Sun v. Pepperl & Fuchs, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In general, refusing to follow an employer’s reasonable policy qualifies as employment misconduct, and “[a] single incident can constitute misconduct when an employee deliberately chooses a course of conduct that is adverse to the employer .” 806 (Minn. 2002).
Brandon L. Siems v. Courtesy Corporation - McDonald’s, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer ’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Julie Costello v. Fond du Lac Reservation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Nathan M. Christenson v. RIHM Motor Company, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. 7 FilmTec Corp.
Jeanine Slonim v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer ’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Billie Edmonds v. Intermediate School District #917, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Travis Pioske v. Pizza Luce VII, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And “[a]s a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonab le policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Kevin R. Ballman v. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reas onable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”).
Cassandra Ferdig v. Northwestern Minnesota Juvenile Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Timothy J. Rosenberger v. South-Town, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Karen M. Erickson v. Legacy of Delano, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Jean-Yves Viardin v. Eclipse Select MN LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Shane K. Harris v. Westlund Excavating, LLC., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Rylee Pool v. Premise Health Employer Solutions, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Antonio Johnson v. Fitness International LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, re fusing to abide by an empl oyer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Kyle E. Kirchner v. Design Ready Controls, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Anthony Richmond v. Vanden Hoak Cleaning, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“As a general rule, refusi ng to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Dennis Field v. Casey’s Services Co., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Aries Williams v. ME Savage Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policie s and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Donovan Casey v. Wash N Fill Express of New Brighton, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In general, “refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” ; see also McGowan v. Exec.
Edward Curtis, Jr. v. ARG Resources LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Zebyderu Abay v. Samaritan Bethany Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schmidgall v. FilmTec 5 Corp., see also Brown v. Nat’l Am.
Teresa M. Lentz v. Fairview Health Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also McGowan v. Executive Express Transp.
Kenneth Salway v. Tandem Products, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dantzler Thomas v. Thermotech LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, “refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Barbara DeVora v. City of St. Paul, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Craig Hanson v. Autism Opportunities Foundation, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , (“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misco nduct.”).
Rhonda Peterson v. DJ’s Companies Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Song Sibell v. U. S. Postal Service, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jack Grew v. Island Investment Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A single incident can constitute mi sconduct when an employee deliberately chooses a course of conduct that is adverse to the employer.”
Randall Rahn v. Midway Farm Equipment, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An employee’s refusal “to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , ; see also McGowan v. Exec.
Charlene Hughes v. Vivien Bacaner, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Generally, an employee’s refusal “to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Jennifer S. Bild v. Agape Healthcare Services Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”).
Dan Casey v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shivsaywack Singh v. Grand Casino Hinckley, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Loralyn R. Brandt v. LaMettry’s Collision Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court has stated that “an employee’s decision to violate knowingly a reasonable policy of the employer is miscon duct.” (Minn .
David Luckow v. City of Saint Paul, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.”
Pierre A. Goudiaby v. Sky Water Technology Foundry, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[R]efusing to abide by an employer’ s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Kristin K. Choronzy v. Viracon, Inc. (1995) (Joint Account), Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A “decision to violate knowing ly a reasonable policy of the employer is misconduct,” which is “particularly true when there are multiple violations of the same rule involving warnings or progressive discipline.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp. , –07 (Minn. 2002).
Pamela Powell v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether an employee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits is a mixed question of fact and law.”
Robyn Potter v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Walter Nachtigall v. Marriott International, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Amber McCorison v. Pizza Luce III, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“ A s a g e n e r a l r u l e , r e f u s i n g t o abide by an employer’s reasona ble policies and requests amounts to [employment] misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Mark V. Reeder v. P & B Transportation Inc. (A18-0213), Duane Kottke Trucking Corp. (A18-0214) Department of Employment … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sanaide Appolon v. Mentor Management, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sharon Olsen v. Lindberg Chiropractic, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, an employee’s refusal “to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Farah M. Muse v. New Flyer of America, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2018