Kirstin Arneson, Relator v. St Cloud Auto Sales.Com LLC, Department of Employment and Economic ...
Case Details
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- Certiorari review of unemployment law judge decision; affirmed on appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Court affirmed the unemployment law judge's decision that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct, rejecting her arguments about insufficient evidence, statutory exceptions, and forfeited age discrimination claim.
Excerpt
On certiorari review, relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. Relator argues that the ULJ's decision must be reversed for four reasons: (1) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) relator's conduct falls under certain statutory exceptions to employment misconduct; (3) the ULJ based its determination on a single incident of misconduct; and (4) relator's employer discharged her as a pretext for age discrimination. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ULJ's misconduct determination, relator's conduct does not fall under any of the statutory exceptions relator cites, relator's conduct was a serious violation of her employer's reasonable expectations, and relator failed to raise a claim of age discrimination in proceedings before the ULJ and therefore forfeited the issue. Thus, we affirm.
Similar Rulings
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determining that because relator was discharged for employee misconduct, he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), relator challenges the ULJ's conclusion that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. She argues that (1) the ULJ's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ULJ erred by failing to consider any exceptions to ineligibility based on employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct was supported by substantial evidence, and none of the statutory exceptions to ineligibility based employment misconduct apply, we affirm.
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.