Blom v. Madsen's Enterprises, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Blom v. Madsen's Enterprises, Inc.

215 N.W.2d 791, 298 Minn. 573, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1528

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 8, 1974

Docket44264

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 215 N.W.2d 791 (Blom v. Madsen's Enterprises, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blom v. Madsen's Enterprises, Inc., 215 N.W.2d 791, 298 Minn. 573, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1528 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

*574 Per Curiam.

Relator has been partially disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for misconduct as defined by Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1), and seeks review of that decision of the commissioner of manpower services. 1 We affirm.

Relator was employed as a dishwasher in a cafeteria at Madsen’s Super Valu Store in Fairmont, Minnesota, on March 18, 1972, when she was discharged for refusing to perform a task within her assigned duties. A claims deputy found the discharge not justified. However, the appeal tribunal and commissioner concluded that her behavior constituted “misconduct.”

We hold that the facts justify the commissioner’s conclusion. The test for determining whether an employee’s conduct constitutes “misconduct” is whether it evinces “such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 374, 204 N. W. 2d 644, 646 (1973). Under this standard the commissioner was correct in concluding that relator was subject to partial disqualification.

Affirmed.

1

Now commissioner of employment services. L. 1973, c. 254, § 1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*574 Per Curiam.

Relator has been partially disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for misconduct as defined by Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1), and seeks review of that decision of the commissioner of manpower services. 1 We affirm.

Relator was employed as a dishwasher in a cafeteria at Madsen’s Super Valu Store in Fairmont, Minnesota, on March 18, 1972, when she was discharged for refusing to perform a task within her assigned duties. A claims deputy found the discharge not justified. However, the appeal tribunal and commissioner concluded that her behavior constituted “misconduct.”

We hold that the facts justify the commissioner’s conclusion. The test for determining whether an employee’s conduct constitutes “misconduct” is whether it evinces “such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.” Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 374, 204 N. W. 2d 644, 646 (1973). Under this standard the commissioner was correct in concluding that relator was subject to partial disqualification.

Affirmed.

1

Now commissioner of employment services. L. 1973, c. 254, § 1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.W.2d 791, 298 Minn. 573, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blom-v-madsens-enterprises-inc-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack