Determining whether the employee performed the "act alleged to be employment misconduct is a fact question." Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn.App. 2003). Factual findings are viewed from the perspective that is most favorable to the ULJ's decision and will not be disturbed if substantial evidence supports the decision.
2002). The determination of whether an employee performed the act alleged to be employment misconduct is a question of fact. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). Factual findings are reviewed in the light most favorable to the ULJ's decision and will be sustained if substantial evidence supports the decision.
The determination of whether an employee performed the "act alleged to be employment misconduct is a fact question." Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn.App. 2003). Factual findings are viewed from the perspective that is most favorable to the ULJ's decision and will be sustained if substantial evidence supports the decision.
Here, Clements reasonably expected that its employees will not drive the demo cars it provides to them while under the influence of alcohol. Responsible use of alcohol is presumed knowledge for employees. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Minn.App. 2003). Driving a company-owned vehicle under the influence of alcohol, even during non-working hours, displays a violation of the standards of behavior an employer reasonably expects of its employees.
6(a) (2010). Whether an employee performed the act alleged to be employment misconduct is a question of fact. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). Factual findings are reviewed in the light most favorable to the decision and sustained if substantial evidence supports the decision.
Determining whether the employee performed the "act alleged to be employment misconduct is a fact question." Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). But whether a particular act constitutes employment misconduct is a question of law, which we review de novo. Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Minn.
Because employers have the right to reasonably expect their employees to follow safety policies, relator's actions constituted employment misconduct. Cf. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 21 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that a violation of a company's safe-driving policy regarding the use of alcohol constituted a substantial lack of concern for employment). D. Representatives during hearing
2011). Whether an employee performed the act alleged to be employment misconduct is a question of fact. Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). Factual findings are reviewed in the light most favorable to the ULJ's decision and will be sustained if substantial evidence supports the decision.
"Whether the employee committed an act alleged to be employment misconduct is a fact question, but the interpretation of whether that act is employment misconduct is an issue of law." Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). The ULJ found that Kimble left the resident in question at the dance for between 10 and 30 minutes.
"Whether the employee committed an act alleged to be employment misconduct is a fact question, but the interpretation of whether that act is employment misconduct is an issue of law." Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Minn. App. 2003). This court reviews questions of law under a de novo standard of review.