argument similar to Garduño ’s and added another element requiring notice of the interest at stake. In Schulte v. Transportation Unlimited, Inc., a discharged employee received notice of a hearing requested by his employer to challenge the unemployment benefits he had already received. 354 N.W.2d 830, 831 (Minn. 1984). Because the employee was reemployed before the hearing and was not informed of the potential requirement of repayment upon reversal of the initial decision to award benefits, the employee did not attend the hearing. Id. at 831-32. The Minnesota Court held that the notice was “affirmatively misleading” and resulted in a denial of due process because it failed to communicate the interest at stake. Id. at 835; see also Dilda v. Quern, 612 F.2d 1055, 1057 (7th Cir. 1980) (<HOLDING>)). {33} Garduño’s case is more like cases from
holding a due process violation for lack of notice of the possible decrease in a food stamp allotment because notice did not meaningfully inform persons so they could protect their interest holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding in a case where it was not clear whether the plaintiff suffered prejudice from the lack of notice that a plaintiff could not obtain reinstatement based on lack of notice holding that due process does not require defendant to receive verbal notice of standard probation conditions because all persons have constructive notice of states criminal statutes