this case. The interplay of paragraphs (a) and (d) in connection with employees who are under the influence of alcohol while driving during working hours has not been considered by this court in a reported decision. Although all paragraphs have some relevance to the employment misconduct determination, we begin our analysis with paragraph (a), which sets forth the basic rule on employment misconduct. Employers have a legitimate interest in having their trucks operated by drivers who are not impaired by the effects of alcohol. See Shell v. Host. Int’l Corp., 513 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Minn.App.1994) (“An employer has the right to expect its employees not to engage in conduct that seriously endangers people’s safety”); Hayes v. Wrico Stamping Griffiths Corp., 490 N.W.2d 672, 675 (Minn.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Risk has not claimed that he lacked the
holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement holding that driving records were nontestimonial holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon holding that statute prohibiting driving while intoxicated applied to defendant driving on a private parking lot holding dangerous driving showed willful disregard of employers interests