"An employer has a right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions." Vargas v. Northwest Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
"An employer has a right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions." Vargas v. Northwest Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
" Hein v. Precision Assocs., Inc., 609 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn. App. 2000) (quotations and citation omitted). An analogous circumstance arose in Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206-07 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004), where this court held that an employee's refusal to participate in a reasonable PIP constituted employment misconduct that disqualified that employee from unemployment benefits.
"An employer has a right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions." Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). "As a general rule, refusing to abide by an employer's reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct."
6(a). Employment misconduct is determined without regard to any common law burden of proof. Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). An employer has the right to expect its employees to follow its reasonable requests, and failure to do so constitutes employment misconduct.
An employer has the right to expect that its employees will obey reasonable requests. Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004).
Although an employer cannot expect perfection from its employees, an employer has the right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions. McGowan v. Executive Express Transp. Enters., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 592, 596 (Minn. 1988); Vargas v. Northwest Area Found, 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). When an employer makes a reasonable request that does not impose an unreasonable burden on the employee, an employee's refusal to comply with the request constitutes employment misconduct.
Minn. Stat. ยง 268.069, subd. 2 (2024); see also Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn.App. 2004) ("Employment misconduct is now determined without regard to any common law burden of proof."), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). The ULJ therefore makes its decisions based on "independent findings of fact" not whether a party met a burden of proof.
"An employer has a right to expect that its employees will abide by reasonable instructions and directions." Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 206 (Minn.App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). In general, "refusing to abide by an employer's reasonable policies and requests amounts to disqualifying misconduct."
" Id. "When parties have presented conflicting evidence on the record, appellate courts must defer to [a] commissioner's ability to weigh the evidence; they may not weigh that evidence on review." Vargas v. Nw. Area Found., 673 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Mar. 30, 2004). Because we must afford deference to the agency's decision, our review of [a] Commission's decision is guided by the principle that the agency's conclusions are not arbitrary and capricious so long as a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made has been articulated. If there is room for two opinions on a matter, the Commission's decision is not arbitrary and capricious, even though the court may believe that an erroneous conclusion was reached.