Feia v. St. Cloud State College
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 2015, 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
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Windsperger v. Broadway Liquor Outlet (Minn. 1984)
- McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
- Gerr v. Target-Fridley (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- Auger v. Gillette Co. (Minn. 1981)
- Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
- Nieszner v. Minnesota Department of Jobs & Training (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)
- Aristotle R. Trinity, Relator v. Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Employment and Economic Development (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
- Ress v. Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Inc. (Minn. 1989)
- Eyler v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)
- Monyoro v. Marriott Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- Jones v. Rosemount, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- King v. Little Italy (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- Moeller v. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minn. 1979)
- Fresonke v. St. Mary's Hospital (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Booher v. Transport Clearings of Twin Cities, Inc. (Minn. 1977)
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.
Opinion
Writ of certiorari issued upon the relation of claimant to review a decision of the commissioner of employment services. The issue is whether claimant should he temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that her discharge was for “misconduct” within the meaning of Minn. St. 268.09, subd. 1(1). The commissioner, affirming the appeal tribunal, held that claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving benefits. We affirm.
Claimant, upon commencing her work as a custodian in the Fine Arts Building at St. Cloud State College (now designated as St. Cloud State University, Minn. St. 136.01), learned that nude models were used in some of the art classes. Claimant, offended by this and by some of the students’ drawings and paintings which she saw in the classrooms she cleaned, expressed her disapproval to everyone she could, including administrators, teachers, and students. Because claimant’s activities in this regard interfered with her job duties and disrupted the art program, the administration offered claimant a transfer to another building and warned her that if she continued her disruptive activities she would lose her job. Claimant refused the transfer and continued her disruptive activities, and the administration therefore discharged her.
We believe that these facts warrant the commissioner’s conclusion that claimant’s discharge was for “misconduct,” that is, conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests or conduct demonstrating a lack of concern by the employee for her job. See, Tilseth v. Midwest Lbr. Co. 295 Minn. 372, 204 N. W. 2d 644 (1973). Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm the commissioner’s determination that claimant should be temporarily disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.