The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a benefits award, holding that an employee's chronic and excessive absenteeism—in violation of a progressive warning policy—constituted misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment compensation despite the excused nature of her final absence.
Outcome: Reversed for relator.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2016, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
What happened
The facts of the case, in plain language.
Jones worked for Rosemount from August 8, 1980, until her discharge on May 1, 1984, which was for excessive absenteeism in contravention of expressed employer policy.
Jones received her first written attendance warning on September 15, 1983, after three verbal warnings, and was told that missing more than 24 hours of work in the next six months could subject her to further disciplinary action, including a final written warning leading to termination.
After her first written warning, Jones missed 51.2 hours of work in five months, prompting a final written warning, and then missed 30.7 hours in approximately two months; although Rosemount permitted employees to make up missed work hours, Jones never attempted to make up any hours she missed.
The Commissioner of Economic Security placed heavy importance on the reason for Jones' absence on her last day of work, found that absence to have been for reasons outside her control, and held her termination to be for reasons other than misconduct.
What the court decided
Kara-Lea Jones worked for Rosemount, Inc. from August 1980 until her May 1984 discharge for excessive absenteeism. Rosemount's attendance policy tracks missed hours on a rolling 12-month basis; an employee who exceeds 48 missed hours, or shows a pattern of regular absences, faces review and discipline escalating through written warnings to termination. Jones received a first written warning in September 1983, missed 51.2 hours over the following five months, drew a final written warning, then missed another 30.7 hours in two months—never using the company's option to make up missed hours. The Commissioner of Economic Security ruled the discharge was for reasons other than misconduct, leaving Jones eligible for unemployment benefits. Applying the Minnesota Supreme Court's misconduct definition, which reaches carelessness so recurrent it shows disregard of the employer's interests, the Court of Appeals held her persistent absenteeism showed a lack of concern for her job and reversed.
- An employee's chronic and excessive absenteeism constitutes misconduct under Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2), disqualifying the employee from unemployment compensation benefits, even when the absences are not willful or deliberate, so long as the pattern demonstrates a lack of concern for the job.
- The reason for an employee's final absence does not control the misconduct determination; a persistent pattern of absence in violation of the employer's attendance policy demonstrates negligent behavior toward the employer justifying discharge and denial of benefits regardless of whether any single absence was outside the employee's control.
- An employer may establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism, and continued violation of such rules after progressive written warnings supports a finding of misconduct.
How the court reached its decision
The court's reasoning, step by step.
Whether the employee's chronic absenteeism constituted misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment compensation benefits under Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2). Although the employee's absenteeism was not shown to be willful or deliberate, she missed 51.2 hours in five months after a first written warning and another 30.7 hours in approximately two months after a final written warning, never attempting to make up missed hours despite the employer's make-up policy; the Commissioner's heavy reliance on the excused reason for her last day of work overlooked this persistent pattern. The pattern of persistent absence demonstrated negligent behavior toward the employer constituting misconduct; the employee was properly discharged and disqualified from benefits, and the Commissioner's determination was reversed.
Whether an employer's reasonable attendance rules and progressive discipline policy can support a finding of misconduct. Rosemount tracked missed hours on a rolling twelve-month basis and administered escalating discipline—verbal warnings, a first written warning, and a final written warning—yet the employee continued to exceed the attendance thresholds set in each successive warning. Continued violation of the employer's reasonable attendance rules after progressive warnings demonstrated a lack of concern for the job and justified both termination and disqualification from benefits.
Key quotes from the opinion
Notable passages from the opinion, in the court's own words.
Cases the court relied on
Earlier decisions the court cited as authority for its ruling.
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gerr v. Target-Fridley (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Division of Employment Security v. Gardner-Denver Machinery, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)
- McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
- Reddmann v. Kokesch Trucking, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Cynthia Stephen, Relator v. Pro Pilots, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- Jacqueline Crosser, Relator v. McAlpin Agency, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Tuff v. Knitcraft Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)
- Matter of Recommendation for Discharge of Kelvie (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Duc Van Luu v. Carley Foundry Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- McLean v. Plastics, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Cameron Anderson v. North American Gear & Forge (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Cecilia Shaw, Relator v. First Advantage Background Services, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Katie Kissner, Relator v. Restore 24, LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Yitagesu Wolde, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2016)
- Mark M. Lazo, Relator v. Moguls F & B LLC, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- Jesse Marshall, Relator v. St. John�s Lutheran Home of Albert Lea, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
- Wichmann v. Travalia & U.S. Directives, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
- Hein v. PRECISION ASSOCIATES, INC. (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Full opinion
The complete text of the court's opinion as published.
Opinion
OPINION
Relator Rosemount, Inc. appeals from the determination of the Commissioner of Economic Security that Kara-Lea Jones was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and was not disqualified from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
FACTS
Respondent Jones was employed by relator Rosemount, Inc. from August 8, 1980, until her discharge on May 1, 1984. Jones was discharged for excessive absenteeism in contravention of expressed employer policy. Rosemount computes attendance on a rolling 12-month basis and, if the employee exceeds 48 hours of missed work during any 12-month period or shows a pattern of regular absences, the employee’s record is reviewed and a determination is made whether a warning is appropriate. The decision whether or not to warn rests with the employee’s immediate supervisor and the supervisor’s supervisor. The first written warning for absenteeism will confirm that the employee has been warned that his or her attendance is unsatisfactory and that, if the problem continues, the employee will be subject to further disciplinary action.
If the employee’s absenteeism continues after the first written warning, the employee may be given a Final Warning for Attendance indicating that his or her attendance continues to be unsatisfactory and that continued absenteeism may result in further disciplinary action which could include termination. If the absenteeism is not corrected, the employee could then be subject to termination.
Jones was given her first written warning for attendance on September 15, 1983. The warning confirmed that she had been verbally warned three times that her attendance was unsatisfactory and that she needed to correct that problem, but had failed to do so. Because of the continuing pattern of absenteeism, the employer determined that a written warning was appropriate and informed Jones that if she missed more than 24 hours of work in the next six months, from September 15,1983, to March 15, 1984, she could be subject to further disciplinary action which could include a final written warning leading to termination.
In the next five months, Jones missed 51.2 hours of work. Her continued absenteeism resulted in the issuance of a final written warning which informed her that if she missed more than twenty-four hours from work in the next six months, from February 13, 1984, to August 13, 1984, she could be subject to further disciplinary action including termination. In approximately the next two months, Jones missed 30.7 hours of work. Although Rosemount had a policy of permitting employees to make up missed work hours, Jones never attempted to make up any hours she missed. In view of her continued absenteeism, Rosemount terminated her employment.
The Commissioner of Economic Security determined that Jones was terminated for reasons other than misconduct and held that she was not disqualified from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits.
ISSUE
Was Jones properly terminated for misconduct and disqualified from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2)?
ANALYSIS
The definition of misconduct set forth in Tilseth v. Midwest Lumber Co., 295 Minn. 372, 204 N.W.2d 644 (1973), governs this action. There, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated:
The intended meaning of the term “misconduct” * * * is limited to- conduct *120 evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand ipere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct” * * *.
295 Minn. at 374-375, 204 N.W.2d at 646.
In Feia v. St. Cloud State College, 309 Minn. 564, 565, 244 N.W.2d 635, 636 (1976), the Supreme Court expanded the definition to include conduct “demonstrating a lack of concern by the employee for her job.”
This court has recognized the employer’s right to establish and enforce reasonable work rules relating to absenteeism. Campbell v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 345 N.W.2d 803, 805 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); Flahave v. Lang Meat Packing, 343 N.W.2d 683, 686 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984).
Although there was no showing that Jones’ absenteeism was willful or deliberate, it was sufficiently chronic and excessive to demonstrate a lack of concern by Jones for her job. The Commissioner placed heavy importance on the reason for which Jones missed her last day of work and, finding that absence to have been for reasons outside of Jones’ control, held her termination to be for reasons other than misconduct.
Regardless of the reason for her absence on her last day of work, Jones’ pattern of persistent absence demonstrated negligent behavior toward her employer, justifying termination and justifying withholding unemployment compensation benefits.
DECISION
Respondent Jones was properly discharged for misconduct and was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 268.09, subd. 1(2).
Reversed.
Continue your research
- Cases applying the Tilseth–Feia misconduct definition to absenteeism discharges
- Decisions addressing whether an excused final absence defeats a misconduct finding based on prior attendance violations
- Secondary sources on Minnesota unemployment compensation disqualification standards
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.