No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court affirmed the unemployment law judge's decision that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits due to discharge for employment misconduct involving unauthorized payment of unused paid time off in violation of employer policies.
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct and aggravated misconduct of paying herself unused paid time off (PTO) in violation of respondent-employer's policies. Relator also argues that the ULJ erred by failing to consider documents she submitted with her request for reconsideration. Because the ULJ did not err in determining that relator was discharged for employment misconduct, and the ULJ's error in failing to consider the documents relator submitted with her request for reconsideration did not prejudice relator's substantial rights, we affirm.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Appellant challenges a district court order affirming the decision of respondent commissioner, which disqualified appellant from certain employment positions for seven years based on a determination that she seriously maltreated a vulnerable adult. Appellant argues that the commissioner's maltreatment determination improperly relied on hearsay evidence in violation of her procedural-due-process rights and is not supported by substantial evidence. Appellant also argues that the disqualification should have been set aside. We affirm.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.