Jacqueline Crosser, Relator v. McAlpin Agency, Inc., 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- Unpublished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
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the unemployment-law judge's decision that Crosser was discharged for employment misconduct, making her ineligible for unemployment benefits due to chronic and excessive tardiness and absenteeism despite prior warnings.
What This Ruling Means
What Happened
Jacqueline Crosser was fired from her job at McAlpin Agency and applied for unemployment benefits. The company argued she shouldn't receive benefits because she was fired for misconduct - specifically, being chronically late and missing work excessively. Crosser had received previous warnings about her attendance problems but continued to have issues showing up to work on time or at all.
What the Court Decided
The Minnesota Court of Appeals sided with the employer. The court agreed that Crosser's repeated tardiness and absences, even after being warned, counted as "employment misconduct." This meant she was not eligible to collect unemployment benefits after being fired.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers can lose their right to unemployment benefits if they're fired for certain types of misconduct, including chronic attendance problems. Even if you're struggling with being on time or missing work, continuing these issues after receiving warnings from your employer can disqualify you from unemployment compensation. Workers should take attendance warnings seriously and address any underlying issues that might be causing them to be late or absent frequently.
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 former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe…
A court properly dismisses sex or sexual orientation employment-discrimination claims against a church under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) if the allegations in the complaint, construed in plaintiff's favor, establish that the court's adjudication of plaintiff's claims would violate the religious…
Robert Villanueva lingered inside a convenience store's retail area and its restroom for hours before store staff finally questioned whether he was using drugs and ordered him to leave. Villanueva sued the store, alleging intrusion upon seclusion (a cleaning employee attempted to enter a restroom…
Appellant Warren Black demanded an evidentiary hearing to challenge a petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) filed by respondent Karla Mitchell. The district court granted the HRO, reasoning that Black had violated active HROs by harassing Mitchell at least three times. Black asks us to…
Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), her claims under the Minnesota whistleblower act (MWA), and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also challenges the district court's denial of her motions to…
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.