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: Thomas P. Risk, Relator, vs. Eastside Beverage, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at C0-02-1920
CITATION: 664 N.W.2d 16 (Minn.App. 2003)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF:
Did Eastside Beverage ("Respondent") act prematurely in terminating Tom Risk ("Relator") by not waiting for the final decision of the judicial review? The Commissioner held that the Relator's violation of driving employers vehicle while intoxicated was misconduct. Relator make every effort to remain employed awaiting the outcome of the judicial review. Respondent submitted incorrect documents to the Department of Economic Security.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER'S BRIEF:
Is an employee discharged for misconduct under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 when he operated a company vehicle while illegally intoxicated? The Representative of the Commissioner of Economic Security found that Risk's driving of the employer's commercial vehicle while intoxicated, which was shown by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, constituted employment misconduct under the statute. Houston v. Int'l Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. 2002). Markel v. city of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1992).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-COMMISSIONER'S CORRECTED BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Whether the record reasonably supports that Relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is disqualified from unemployment benefits because his conduct disregarded a standard of behavior the employer had a right to expect and his conduct showed a substantial lack of concern for his employment. The commissioner's representative, Kent E. Todd, decided in the affirmative. Most apposite statutes: Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4 & 6 (2002); Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd .1(6)(2002). Most apposite cases, not to exceed four: Houston v. International Data Transfer Corp., 645 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. 2002); Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002); Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp., 526 N.W.2d 50, (Minn. 1995).