ARTICLE
20 October 2010

Single Absence did not Constitute Misconduct to Disqualify Employee from Unemployment Compensation

LH
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren

Contributor

Larkin Hoffman provides counsel to a wide variety of organizations, from small businesses and nonprofits to Fortune 500 companies, in many areas of practice including corporate and governance matters, litigation, real estate, government relations, labor and employment, intellectual property, information technology, franchising and taxation. The firm also serves the needs of individuals in many areas including trusts and estates and family law.

We are an entrepreneurial law firm with a vibrant practice. Our attorneys’ doors are open for collaboration in a friendly and professional atmosphere. We nurture client relationships through exceptional service, teamwork and creativity even as we work remotely. We are a firm, not merely a collection of individuals practicing law under the same roof. This spirit of cooperation – among attorneys and staff – is a key element of our firm culture.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that a single absence by an employee did not constitute misconduct sufficient to disqualify the employee from receiving unemployment compensation.
United States Employment and HR

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that a single absence by an employee did not constitute misconduct sufficient to disqualify the employee from receiving unemployment compensation. In Pech v. Orthopaedic Res. Mgmt., Inc., 2010 WL 1439991 (Minn. Ct. App. April 12, 2010) the Court concluded that an employee's unexcused absence did not constitute misconduct because it was a single incident that did not have a significant adverse impact on the employer. The employer had argued that the employee had previous disciplinary infractions, and that the absence therefore was not a single incident.

The Court acknowledged the employer's argument, but ultimately held that the employer was bound by the reason it gave to the employee for the termination, namely the single unexcused absence. This case demonstrates that employers should carefully consider the reasons they give employees for their terminations, as those reasons can have an impact on the post-employment relationship between the parties.

Contact our experienced team of Labor and Employment Law attorneys if you require assistance with your Company's unemployment claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More