Cited by

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

303 citing documents.

David Jacobs, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Jean-Yves Viardin, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Shane K. Harris, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Rylee Pool, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Antonio Johnson, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Aries Williams, Relator, 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, Relator, 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., Relator, vs. ARG Resources LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Zebyderu Abay, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Schmidgall v. FilmTec 5 Corp., see also Brown v. Nat’l Am.
Teresa M. Lentz, Relator, vs. Fairview Health Services, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also McGowan v. Executive Express Transp.
Kenneth Salway, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Dantzler Thomas, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Craig Hanson, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Song Sibell, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jack Grew, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shivsaywack Singh, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Loralyn R. Brandt, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[R]efusing to abide by an employer’ s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Kristin K. Choronzy, Relator, 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, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Walter Nachtigall, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Amber McCorison, Relator, 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.
A18-0214 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sanaide Appolon, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sharon Olsen, Relator, 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, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Robert Sheffel, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Joanne Lane, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 206; see also Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp. , d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).