Cited by

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

303 citing documents.

Patty Kirkey, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Tina Bell, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Bradley Yde, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that the purpose of the reporting requirement is to enable the employer to fu rnish immediate attention and to investigate the claim soon after the injury).
Thomas Kutschke, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ryan Wille, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Lukas Tornquist, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donna J. Sitarski, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Supreme Court has also held that “[a]s a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Robert Dietz, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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).
Granville Butler, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reas onable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Mustafa Elkhatib, 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).
Scott Souter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This argument is unavailing because although a violation of a n employer’s reasonable policy can constitute employment misconduct, such a violation is not necessary to establish employment misconduct , so long as the statutory definition of employment misconduct is otherwise satisfied.
Robert T. O’Neill, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Patti A. Peroni, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Julie Schwantes, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Nse Umana, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Richard Christensen, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Barton Winter, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
John W. Cook, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Helen Brown, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, r efusing to abide by an employer’ s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Ardell Tesmer, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a gene ral rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s 4 reasonable policies and requests am ounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Jason Gannon, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Jennifer Hursey, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Serious violation of Homeservices’ reasonable expectations “As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” d 801, 804 (Minn. 2002).
Cari Van Hecke, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Donna E. Schwartz, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp.
Noelle L. Norris, Relator v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Noelle L. Norris, Relator v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ethan J. Lahn, Relator v. Gamestop, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ethan J. Lahn, Relator v. Gamestop, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.” (“The employer has the right to expect scrupulous adherence to procedure by employees handling the employer’s money.”).
Chrystal Gardner, Relator v. Community Action Duluth, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Chrystal Gardner, Relator v. Community Action Duluth, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fulisha Fulmer, Relator v. Meridian Behavioral Health, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fulisha Fulmer, Relator v. Meridian Behavioral Health, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development 888 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2016
the Commissioner of Economic Security argued that the statutory definition was “less restrictive” than the Tilseth standard and that the statute therefore “superseded” the Tilseth standard.
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
Sheila Fangel, Relator v. Health Partners, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sheila Fangel, Relator v. Health Partners, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Because the nature of an employer’s interest will vary depending upon the job, what constitutes disregard of that interest, and therefore misconduct, will also vary.” (quotation omitted).
Sharon Anderson, Relator v. YUM Design, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Sharon Anderson, Relator v. YUM Design, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Brennan, Relator v. Lubrication Technologies, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Brennan, Relator v. Lubrication Technologies, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An employee’s conduct can constitute employment misconduct—even if the conduct occurs as a single incident—if the employee “deliberately chooses a course of conduct that is adverse to the employer,” or, put differently, “is in willful disregard of an employer’s interest .
Sharon M. Nash, Relator v. Douglas Animal Hospital, Inc., 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
Sharon M. Nash, Relator v. Douglas Animal Hospital, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”
Cecilia Shaw, Relator v. First Advantage Background Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[R]efusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to 5 disqualifying misconduct.”
Angela M. Schroeder, Relator v. Angel Eyes, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Angela M. Schroeder, Relator v. Angel Eyes, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tiffany Thompson, Relator v. Jefferson Partners LP, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tiffany Thompson, Relator v. Jefferson Partners LP, Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer’s reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct.”