St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep

369 N.W.2d 33, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4290
CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota
DecidedJune 11, 1985
DocketC5-85-255
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 369 N.W.2d 33 (St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Williams Nursing Home v. Koep, 369 N.W.2d 33, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4290 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

FACTS

Joyce Koep was employed as a housekeeper by St. Williams Nursing Home from November 1, 1979 until her discharge on September 20, 1984.

After being warned against excessive absenteeism, Koep was absent from work an additional three days, making a total of ten absences during the calendar year of 1984. Each of those absences occurred because of her illness or that of her family. In each instance, Koep notified her employer of her absence prior to the start of her next shift.

The employer’s Personnel Policy Handbook provides, in part, that “habitual absenteeism or tardiness is sufficient grounds for dismissal.” Employer regards ten absences in one year as habitual absenteeism sufficient for discharge. The Commissioner of Economic Security concluded that Koep was involuntarily discharged for reasons other than misconduct.

DECISION

The issue here is not whether Koep should have been terminated but whether, now that she has been terminated, she should be denied unemployment compensation benefits. Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet, 346 N.W.2d 142, 143 (Minn.1984); Auger v. Gillette Co., 303 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn.1981). An employer’s standards for discharging an employee for cause may differ from the misconduct standard enunciated in the economic security law.

In affirming the decision of the referee, the Commissioner stated:

In the instant case the Referee reasonably found from the evidence that the claimant’s absenteeism did not show the culpability required to come within the definition of misconduct [as stated in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973).]

Under our limited standard of review set forth in White v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 332 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Minn.1983), we affirm.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc.
438 N.W.2d 727 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1989)
Beene v. REVIEW BD. OF IND. DEPT. OF EMP. & TRAINING SERV.
528 N.E.2d 842 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1988)
Lilledahl v. Process Displays Co.
413 N.W.2d 273 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
McCoy v. Spicer Off-Highway Axle Division
412 N.W.2d 24 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Independent School District No. 709 v. Hansen
412 N.W.2d 320 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Tuckerman Optical Corp. v. Thoeny
407 N.W.2d 491 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc.
401 N.W.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
Gerr v. Target-Fridley
382 N.W.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1986)
McLean v. Plastics, Inc.
378 N.W.2d 104 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
369 N.W.2d 33, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-williams-nursing-home-v-koep-minnctapp-1985.