Getting fired is hard enough. Then the denial arrives, and it says you're ineligible for unemployment benefits because you were discharged for "employment misconduct." Here's what many people don't realize: the word your employer used is not what decides your case. "Misconduct" has a specific legal definition in Minnesota — one shaped by decades of statute and court decisions — and it is narrower than most employers, and most fired workers, assume.

Being fired doesn't automatically mean being denied

Minnesota law starts from a simple rule: if you were discharged from your job, you are still eligible for unemployment benefits unless you were discharged for employment misconduct (or its more serious cousin, aggravated employment misconduct). That rule comes straight from the statute, Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4.

In other words, "fired" and "fired for misconduct" are two very different things under the law. People are discharged every day for reasons that do not meet the legal definition — a position "not working out," personality conflicts, performance that didn't meet expectations, honest mistakes. Minnesota's courts have said this directly: merely unsatisfactory performance is not misconduct. Bray v. Dogs & Cats Ltd., 679 N.W.2d 182, 186 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).

Minnesota law also defines "discharge" broadly. A discharge occurs when the employer's words or actions would lead a reasonable employee to believe they will no longer be allowed to work in any capacity — and a layoff for lack of work counts as a discharge, not misconduct. Even an unpaid suspension of indefinite duration, or one longer than 30 calendar days, is treated as a discharge under the statute.

Minnesota's unemployment statute defines employment misconduct as:

"any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee."

Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a)

Notice what's built into that sentence. The violation must be serious — not minor, not technical. And the standard being violated must be one the employer has the right to reasonably expect. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has measured that expectation against what an average, reasonable employee would do under the circumstances. Brisson v. City of Hewitt, 789 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).

Two more features of the definition matter. First, it is exclusive: by its own terms, no other definition of misconduct applies. It doesn't matter how your employee handbook defines misconduct or what your termination letter says. Second, note the words "negligent, or indifferent." Since a 2019 amendment narrowed the definition in other respects, the statute still does not require proof that you intended to harm your employer — sufficiently serious careless or indifferent conduct can qualify. See Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express Inc., 785 N.W.2d 819, 824 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). That cuts both ways, and it's why the statutory exclusions discussed below — which protect ordinary slips, inability, and good faith judgment calls — do so much of the work in these cases.

In weighing whether conduct crosses the line, Minnesota courts have looked at considerations like whether the employee deliberately violated a standard the employer had a right to expect, whether the conduct adversely affected the business or coworkers, and whether the employee ignored past warnings. Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519, 524 (Minn. 1989).

What counts as misconduct — with real cases

Every case is fact-specific, but Minnesota decisions show recurring patterns. Courts have found employment misconduct where:

Courts have also recognized a "last straw" idea: a series of unrelated infractions, none disqualifying alone, can add up to misconduct when a final infraction, viewed with the rest, shows disregard for the employer's interests. Monyoro v. Marriott Corp., 403 N.W.2d 325, 328–29 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).

Ten things that are not misconduct — by law

This is the part of the statute too many people never hear about. Minnesota law lists ten categories of conduct that are not employment misconduct, regardless of the general definition. Under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(b), the following do not count:

  1. Conduct that was a consequence of your mental illness or impairment. The Court of Appeals held, for example, that performance problems caused by stroke complications were not misconduct. Cunningham v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 809 N.W.2d 231, 236 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
  2. Conduct that was a consequence of inefficiency or inadvertence. Working too slowly or making a careless slip is not misconduct.
  3. Simple unsatisfactory conduct. Not being good enough at the job is a reason an employer may let someone go — but it is not misconduct. Bray, 679 N.W.2d at 186.
  4. Conduct an average, reasonable employee would have engaged in under the circumstances. If a reasonable person in your shoes would have done the same thing, it isn't misconduct.
  5. Conduct that was a consequence of your inability or incapacity. Being unable to do something is different from refusing to do it. An employee's refusal to speak in public, driven by genuine fear and outside his usual duties, was not misconduct. Enz v. Holiday Inn North, 388 N.W.2d 756, 758 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
  6. Good faith errors in judgment, if judgment was required. When the job called for a judgment call and you made an honest one that turned out badly, that is not misconduct.
  7. Absence because of your own illness or injury, with proper notice to the employer.
  8. Absence, with proper notice, to provide necessary care for an ill, injured, or disabled immediate family member. Courts have applied this protectively: an absence caused by an immediate family member's unexpected hospitalization was held not to be misconduct even where notice broke down. Hanson v. Crestliner Inc., 772 N.W.2d 539, 543–44 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). Childcare-related absences have received similar treatment where the employee made real efforts to solve the problem. McCourtney v. Imprimis Tech., Inc., 465 N.W.2d 721, 725 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
  9. Conduct that was a consequence of a substance use disorder — unless you were previously diagnosed with or treated for the disorder and have since failed to make consistent efforts to control it. Courts read this exception carefully: it did not protect an employee who was never actually diagnosed as chemically dependent. Peterson v. Nw. Airlines Inc., 753 N.W.2d 771, 776 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). (Separately, driving-while-impaired offenses that adversely affect the employment are misconduct under a specific statutory carve-out.)
  10. Conduct that was a consequence of you or an immediate family member being a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or harassment or stalking.

If the reason you were fired fits one of these categories, that can be the difference between a denial and an award of benefits. Many denials get reversed on appeal precisely because the initial determination didn't account for one of these exclusions — for example, treating illness-related absences with proper notice as "attendance violations."

Special situations worth knowing about

A single incident

If you were fired over one incident, the statute says that fact is "important" and must be considered in deciding whether your conduct rises to the level of misconduct. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(d). But be careful: there is no longer a freestanding "single incident" exception in Minnesota — the legislature removed it in 2009, and the Court of Appeals has confirmed it's gone. Potter v. N. Empire Pizza, Inc., 805 N.W.2d 872, 873, 878 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (a single angry physical contact with a coworker was misconduct). One bad moment in an otherwise clean record is weighed differently than a pattern of violations — but a single act that is serious enough, even a very small theft, can still disqualify. Skarhus, 721 N.W.2d at 344.

Vaccine refusals and religious beliefs

A notable recent development: the Court of Appeals has held that denying unemployment benefits because an employee refused a COVID-19 vaccination violates the Free Exercise Clause — and must be reversed — where the refusal was based on the employee's sincerely held religious beliefs. Goede v. AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 992 N.W.2d 700, 707–08 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023). In Goede itself, though, the court affirmed a denial of benefits after finding that the claimant's objections were personal and philosophical rather than sincerely religious — the sincerity of the belief is where these cases are won and lost. If you were fired over a vaccine mandate and your objection was religious, that fact matters a great deal to your case.

Off-the-job conduct

The definition covers conduct "on the job or off the job." Off-duty conduct can be misconduct, but the connection to the employment matters — the clearest cases involve off-duty conduct that directly destroys the ability to do the job, like losing a required driver's license. Lawrence, 785 N.W.2d at 820.

Aggravated employment misconduct

A separate, more severe category applies when the conduct would amount to a gross misdemeanor or felony and had a significant adverse effect on the employment, or involves abuse or neglect of patients or residents in certain care facilities. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6a. No criminal charge or conviction is required. The consequences are harsher too: beyond ineligibility, the wage credits from that job are canceled, which can affect whether you qualify for benefits at all. If your determination mentions aggravated misconduct, take it seriously — this is a situation where talking to an attorney matters most.

How long a misconduct denial lasts

Ineligibility for misconduct isn't a short penalty period. It generally lasts until you've returned to covered employment and earned enough in subsequent wages to requalify under the statute's formula. That's a strong reason not to simply accept a denial you believe is wrong.

Two things that surprise people

Your employer's label doesn't decide your case. Employers often use "misconduct" loosely — in termination letters, HR paperwork, and responses to the unemployment agency — to describe anything from genuine wrongdoing to ordinary performance problems. But the legal question isn't what the separation was called. It's what actually happened, measured against the statutory definition and its exclusions. And by statute, there is no burden of proof on you in Minnesota unemployment proceedings: eligibility is determined based on the available evidence. If you appeal, the hearing before an unemployment law judge is a fresh look at the facts, not a mere review of the first decision.

Your employer's own process failures usually won't win your case. Many people assume that if the employer skipped steps in its own discipline policy — no written warning, no progressive discipline — the denial must be reversed. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held otherwise: the misconduct analysis focuses exclusively on the employee's conduct, so an employer's failure to follow its own disciplinary procedures doesn't, by itself, restore eligibility. Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 316 (Minn. 2011). That doesn't make process evidence useless — warnings (or their absence) can still bear on whether you knew what was expected — but the winning argument is about your conduct and the statute, not the employer's paperwork. Building the case around the right question is exactly where preparation pays off.

Denied for misconduct? What to do next

If you've received a determination of ineligibility based on employment misconduct, three things matter most:

  1. Watch the deadline. In Minnesota, an appeal generally must be filed within 45 calendar days after the date on the determination — the exact date is printed on your notice, and the deadline is strictly enforced. (That's general information; check your own notice for your deadline.)
  2. Gather your story and your proof. Write down what happened, in order. Collect anything relevant: the determination itself, warnings or reviews, texts and emails, the policy you allegedly violated, doctor's notes, and the names of witnesses who saw what actually happened.
  3. Map your facts to the law. Ask: Was the violation truly serious? Was the employer's expectation reasonable, judged against what an average reasonable employee would do? And does one of the ten statutory exclusions describe what really happened — a good faith error, an illness with notice, an inability rather than a refusal? These are the questions an unemployment law judge will be weighing.

Where an attorney-prepared packet fits in

You're allowed to do all of this yourself — Minnesota's hearing system is built for self-represented claimants. But as the cases above show, these disputes turn on fine distinctions: negligence versus inadvertence, refusal versus inability, a serious violation versus an ordinary shortcoming. Our attorney-guided Self-Representation Packet is designed to do the legal heavy lifting in steps 2 and 3 for you. After a guided intake and an attorney's personal review of your facts, your packet organizes your strongest arguments around the statutory definition and its exclusions — the same framework the unemployment law judge will apply to your case — and pairs them with a practice script for your hearing, guidance on which documents to submit, and help identifying the witnesses who can support the facts that matter most. You still present your own case, but you walk in with a plan built by an experienced attorney. We can't promise any particular result — every case turns on its own facts — but preparation is the part of your case you control.

Denied for "misconduct"? Don't take the label at face value.

An experienced Minnesota employment attorney reviews your situation (with Eliza, our AI intake assistant) and prepares a personalized Self-Representation Packet — your key arguments, a practice script, and document and witness guidance — for a flat fee you'll know up front. And you'll see a real section of your packet before you pay anything.

Select Your Service Chat with Eliza

Sources

  • Minn. Stat. § 268.095 (2025) — Ineligibility because of quit or discharge, including subd. 4 (discharge), subd. 5 (discharge defined), subd. 6 (employment misconduct defined), subd. 6a (aggravated employment misconduct), and subd. 10 (ineligibility duration). Available at revisor.mn.gov.
  • Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 2 (2025) — determinations made based on available evidence, without any burden of proof.
  • Cases cited above, including Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002); Ress v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., Inc., 448 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. 1989); Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2011); Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2016); Skarhus v. Davanni's Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006); Potter v. N. Empire Pizza, Inc., 805 N.W.2d 872 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011); and Goede v. AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 992 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023).

Keep reading

Eligibility Basics

Do I Qualify for Unemployment Benefits in Minnesota? The Three Tests That Decide

Your wages, your separation, and your week-to-week requirements — the three tests that decide every Minnesota claim.

 Denials & Appeals

Can You Get Unemployment If You Quit Your Job in Minnesota?

Quitting usually means ineligible — but Minnesota law lists ten exceptions, and several cover exactly the situations that force people out the door.

 Guide

How to Appeal a Minnesota Unemployment Denial

Every step from your determination to the judge's decision, including the strict 45-day deadline.

This article describes Minnesota law as of its last-reviewed date and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change; for advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.