![]() ![]() Whether a particular act constitutes disqualifying misconduct is a question of D E C I S I O NĮmployee discharged for employment misconduct is disqualified from receivingĮmployee engaged in conduct that disqualifies the employee from unemploymentīenefits is a mixed question of fact and law.”Įmployee committed a particular act involves a question of fact that will notīe reversed if there is evidence in the record to reasonably support it Standards of behavior that Mystic Lake had the right to ![]() Objective view of the facts, relator’s rude and discourteous conduct towardsĬasino guests while she was a blackjack dealer was a serious violation of the Review judge (review judge) that she was disqualified from receiving benefitsīecause she was discharged for misconduct by her employer, respondent Mystic Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent Department)Ĭonsidered and decided by Halbrooks, Presidingīrings this certiorari appeal to challenge a decision by a senior unemployment Holmes, Amy Zaske, Certified Student Attorney, Department of Employment andĮconomic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Hollingsworth, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc., 15815 Franklinĭivisional HR, 2400 Mystic Lake Boulevard NW, Prior Lake, MN 55372 (respondent employer)Ī. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |