Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Lee A. Pierce, Respondent, vs. DiMa Corporation (1992), Relator Department of
Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A05-2470
CITATION: 721 N.W.2d 627 (Minn.App. 2006)
Legal Issues in APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Whether the Senior Unemployment Review Judge's decision that Dima Corporation discharged Lee A. Pierce from employment for reasons other than employment misconduct is reasonably supported by the record? Mr. Pierce was terminated because he violated Appellant's policy regarding cash register transactions and this constitutes misconduct as defined in Minn. Stat. §268.095, Subd. 4. Most apposite authorities: Minn. Stat. § 268.095 subd. 4 (2005); Minn. Stat. § 268.095 subd. 6(a) (2005); McDonald v. PDQ, 341 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); Schmidgall v. Filmtec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn.2002). Applicable Rule: Minn. Stat. § 268.105 subd. 2 (2005).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
- Employees who are discharged due to employment misconduct are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. A single incident that does not have a significant adverse impact on the employer is specifically exempted from the definition of misconduct. Did Lee A. Pierce commit employment misconduct by using the wrong procedure to open the employer's cash register on one occasion, where no records went missing, nothing was taken, and there was no suggestion that he did so for any reason other than an error?