Peterson v. Fred Vogt & Company
Minnesota Court of Appeals
495 N.W.2d 875 (1993)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Michael Peterson (plaintiff) was a full-time heating and air-conditioning technician employed by Fred Vogt & Company (Vogt) (defendant). Peterson was required to maintain a driver’s license to operate a company vehicle and make service calls. Peterson received five off-duty speeding tickets while driving his vehicle in less than one year. Vogt formally notified Peterson that, because of Peterson’s driving record, Vogt might need to confiscate his company vehicle but that Peterson could potentially drive his vehicle with Peterson’s proof of insurance. The notice also indicated the possibility of termination to prevent further insurance-cost increases. Peterson received two additional off-duty speeding tickets and was informed by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that his license would be suspended for 90 days. Peterson asked Vogt to sign a statement attesting that Peterson required a limited driver’s license for work. Peterson also asked Vogt if he could continue working using Peterson’s car and insurance. Vogt refused both requests and terminated Peterson. When Peterson was fired, his license had not yet been suspended. Peterson applied for unemployment compensation. Two referees found that Peterson had not engaged in disqualifying misconduct. A commissioner representative disagreed, determining that Peterson was disqualified from benefits because his actions constituted misconduct. Peterson brought suit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.