Colleen Campbell, Relator v. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota (Corp.), Department of Employment and Economic Development

Minn. Ct. App.February 2, 2015No. A14-652

Defendant WinPlanned Parenthood of Minnesota

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

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Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Unpublished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 court affirmed the unemployment law judge's determination that Campbell was discharged for employment misconduct (a HIPAA violation) and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. The court rejected her argument that the misconduct was merely inadvertent.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved Colleen Campbell and her former employer, Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, in a dispute that went through the Department of Employment and Economic Development. The case was filed in February 2015 and dealt with employment law issues. Unfortunately, the court records available don't provide clear details about what specific workplace dispute occurred between Campbell and Planned Parenthood, what the court ultimately decided, or what damages (if any) were awarded. Without knowing the specific facts, court decision, or outcome of this case, it's difficult to draw meaningful lessons for workers. Employment law cases can involve many different issues, such as wrongful termination, discrimination, wage disputes, or unemployment benefits claims. **What this means for workers:** When workplace disputes arise, employees have various legal protections and may be able to seek help through state employment agencies like the Department of Employment and Economic Development. If you're facing workplace issues, consider documenting problems and consulting with employment law resources or attorneys to understand your rights and options. *Note: This summary is limited due to incomplete case information in the available records.*

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Benita M Brannon v. John Sterling Howe

Minn. Ct. App.Feb 2026

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.

Plaintiff Win

Cole Robert Hooker v. David Sean Kennedy

Minn. Ct. App.Jan 2026

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.

Defendant Win

Jenna Marie Benzinger v. Roger Tabet

Minn. Ct. App.Jan 2026

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.

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion More Planned Parenthood of Minnesota Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More healthcare employer cases

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.