Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., 360 N.W.2d 662.

30 citing documents.

Santa Williamson, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Patti L. Davies, Relator v. Donaldson Company, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patti L. Davies, Relator v. Donaldson Company, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Angela Watson, Relator v. St. Stephen's Human Services, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Angela Watson, Relator v. St. Stephen's Human Services, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook 695 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook 695 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Id.; -18 (Minn.App.1994) (concluding that employee had good reason to quit when employee reported manager’s harassing comments to owner and owner stated that he could not “control the opinions of what other people feel or think”); cf. Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., (holding that employee quit with good cause when, after he was given increased work hours and responsibilities, he was given no assurances of assistance from his employer).
Shanahan v. District Memorial Hospital 495 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Shanahan v. District Memorial Hospital 495 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc.
Parnell v. River Bend Carriers, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Parnell v. River Bend Carriers, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc.
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
mployee to complain to their supervisor when the supervisor is the harasser because the employee would not likely have a "reasonable expectation of assistance.” (no expectation of assistance where supervisor viewed harassment as "joke”); Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., (employer deemed to have knowledge of continuing harassment where supervisor was source of many problems).
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Polley v. Gopher Bearing Co. 478 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Cf. Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., : Porrazzo admits that he did not seek assistance from his employer immediately before quitting.
Heaser v. Lerch, Bates & Associates Inc. 467 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Heaser v. Lerch, Bates & Associates Inc. 467 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Clark v. K-Mart Store No. 3059, Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc.
Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. 430 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. 430 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc.
Biegner v. Bloomington Chrysler/Plymouth, Inc. 426 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Ryks v. Nieuwsma Livestock Equipment 410 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Ryks v. Nieuwsma Livestock Equipment 410 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc.
Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow 400 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow 400 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Similarly, we held that an employer was deemed to have had knowledge of continuing harassment where the supervisor was the source of many of the employee’s problems.
Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas 397 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Portz v. Pipestone Skelgas 397 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cf. Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., (an unworkable relationship with an immediate supervisor, plus an increase in responsibilities with no corresponding increase in salary, constituted good cause to quit).
Dura Supreme v. Kienholz 381 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Dura Supreme v. Kienholz 381 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(employee terminated his employment with good cause when he was given no assurances or expectation of assistance from his employer).
Neubert v. St. Mary's Hospital & Nursing Center 365 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Neubert v. St. Mary's Hospital & Nursing Center 365 N.W.2d 780 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Properties Management Co., 308 Minn. 422, 424-25 , -35 (1976) (employee quit for good cause when the employer failed to withhold a union initiation fee as promised); Porrazzo v. Nabisco, Inc., -64 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (employee quit for good cause when employer substantially increased employee’s work hours and job duties without a salary increase).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by