Noelle Erling, Relator v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Department of Employment and Economic Development, ...
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from unemployment law judge determination; court affirmed the ULJ's decision
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court affirmed the unemployment law judge's determination that the relator's filing of a false compliance form constituted employment misconduct, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Excerpt
Relator Noelle Erling challenges an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that her filing of a false compliance form constituted employment misconduct, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits. She argues that (1) the ULJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) even accepting the findings, her conduct did not rise to the level of employment misconduct; and (3) the ULJ erred by denying relief on her request for reconsideration. We affirm.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.