Feia v. St. Cloud State College

244 N.W.2d 635, 309 Minn. 564, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1589
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 2, 1976
Docket46175
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 244 N.W.2d 635 (Feia v. St. Cloud State College) 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
Feia v. St. Cloud State College, 244 N.W.2d 635, 309 Minn. 564, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1589 (Mich. 1976).

Opinion

*565 Per Curiam.

Writ of certiorari issued upon the relation of claimant to review a decision of the commissioner of employment services. The issue is whether claimant should he temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that her discharge was for “misconduct” within the meaning of Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). The commissioner, affirming the appeal tribunal, held that claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving benefits. We affirm.

Claimant, upon commencing her work as a custodian in the Fine Arts Building at St. Cloud State College (now designated as St. Cloud State University, Minn. St. 136.01), learned that nude models were used in some of the art classes. Claimant, offended by this and by some of the students’ drawings and paintings which she saw in the classrooms she cleaned, expressed her disapproval to everyone she could, including administrators, teachers, and students. Because claimant’s activities in this regard interfered with her job duties and disrupted the art program, the administration offered claimant a transfer to another building and warned her that if she continued her disruptive activities she would lose her job. Claimant refused the transfer and continued her disruptive activities, and the administration therefore discharged her.

We believe that these facts warrant the commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s discharge was for “misconduct,” that is, conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or conduct demonstrating a lack of concern by the employee for her job. See, Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 204 N. W. 2d 644 (1973). Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the commissioner’s determination that claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc.
499 N.W.2d 506 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1993)
Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training
499 N.W.2d 832 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1993)
McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc.
465 N.W.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1991)
Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc.
448 N.W.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1989)
Eyler v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co.
427 N.W.2d 758 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1988)
Monyoro v. Marriott Corp.
403 N.W.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Gerr v. Target-Fridley
382 N.W.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
Fresonke v. St. Mary's Hospital
363 N.W.2d 328 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
Jones v. Rosemount, Inc.
361 N.W.2d 118 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)
Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet
346 N.W.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1984)
King v. Little Italy
341 N.W.2d 896 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1984)
Auger v. Gillette Co.
303 N.W.2d 255 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)
Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation
281 N.W.2d 879 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1979)
Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc.
260 N.W.2d 181 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 N.W.2d 635, 309 Minn. 564, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feia-v-st-cloud-state-college-minn-1976.