Top dozen cases from "A" (Allotment) to "Z" (Zoning)

"Whom he reckons up by dozens."
Gilbert & Sullivan, H.M.S. Pinafore (1878)
By Marshall H. Tanick

The past year has witnessed a number of significant decisions by the state and federal appellate courts in Minnesota.

Heading the list in 2010 is: the Governor's allotment case. Decided early in the year, it was a precursor for a number of notable cases covering subjects ranging from "A" (Allotment) to "Z" (Zoning) and a whole lot in-between.

Here's a look at a dozen of the most interesting and important ones.

Allotment Action

In Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010), the Supreme Court narrowly held that the statute authorizing the Governor to make unilateral budget cuts in times of financial crisis, Minn. Stat. § 16A.152, subd. 4, does not permit reducing allotments before the budget-making process is completed. The ruling, written by out-going Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, held that Governor Pawlenty exceeded his "lawful authority" by making the budgetary adjustments to the special nutrition program for the elderly and disabled after a prior legislative session ended.

Three Pawlenty appointees disagreed, opining that the Governor acted properly, a position also advocated by one of several amici curiae, which included, interestingly, legislator Tom Emmer, who became the unsuccessful Republican candidate to replace Pawlenty, and University of Minnesota Law Professor David Strass, whom Pawlenty subsequently appointed to the Supreme Court.

Bankruptcy Brouhaha's

A Twin Cities law firm's challenge to two portions of the bankruptcy law requiring attorneys providing bankruptcy services to declare themselves a "debt relief agency" and proscribing attorneys from advising clients to take on more "pre-bankruptcy debt" was rebuffed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1324 (2010), the High Court unanimously overturned rulings of U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum in Minneapolis and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which both ruled the provisions unenforceable against lawyers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in one of her first major rulings, upheld the provisions as permissible ways "to improve bankruptcy law and practice" and reasonably related to a valid governmental interest in preventing "deception" of consumers. The proscription regarding pre-filing debt only applies to obtaining additional debt because the debtor is filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

An ex-student's effort to extinguish her student loan in bankruptcy failed in Sederlund v. Educational Credit Management Corp., 2010 WL 4273243 (8th Cir. Nov. 1, 2010). Upholding a ruling from the Federal Court in Minnesota, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found no "undue hardship" warranting discharge because the former student's housemate paid more than half of their "moderate" expenses. Since the couple constituted a "joint economic unit," similar to marriage, the payments by the boyfriend were attributable to the debtor girlfriend.

Criminal Cases

In State v. Austin, 788 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. App. 2010), the appellate court applied the doctrine of "transferred intent" to uphold a criminal sexual conduct conviction in Olmsted County District Court under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a). Admitting sexual contact with the victim, the defendant contended that he lacked the necessary statutory intent because he wanted to have sexual contact with a different victim.

The argument failed under the "transferred intent" rule, which permits criminal sanctions against a party who commits a crime against a victim, even though he intended to harm someone else. The doctrine, applicable in "ordinary assault" cases, also extends to criminal sexual conduct.

The statute proscribing false reporting of police misconduct, Minn. Stat. § 609.505, was stricken on First Amendment grounds by the Court of Appeals in State v. Crawley, 789 N.W.2d 899 (Minn. App. 2010). It reversed a decision of the Winona County District Court because the statute was not "viewpoint neutral" since it distinguished between false information critical of police and false exonerating data, without any "compelling" government interest.

Employment Enigmas

In Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 2010), the Supreme Court overturned a verdict, attorney's fees and costs, of nearly $350,000, for an in-house attorney who claimed that his discharge violated the Minnesota whistleblower statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.932, after he complained to management about illegal activity.

In a highly-fractured decision, a three-member plurality of the Court held that the lawyer did not qualify for protection against reprisal because he did not have a goal "to expose" illegality, but only to protect himself. The three dissenters felt that he satisfied the requirements of the whistleblower statute. The outcome turned on the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Magnuson, in his final opinion on the Court, who deemed the attorney ineligible for protection under the statute because of the jury's finding that he violated a "fiduciary duty" by disclosing confidential information about the imbroglio to his father.

Another employment enigma involved a chaplain at a women's correctional facility, who was entitled to sue for wrongful discharge after she was terminated because she criticized a religious training prison program for inmates in Holmgren v. State, 2010 WL 2485603 (Minn. App. 2010) (unpublished). Upholding a ruling of the Scott County District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the warden was not entitled to qualified immunity because the chaplain's right to speak out under the First Amendment was "clearly established," and a "reasonable public official should have known that firing [the chaplain] for raising concerns about a potentially unconstitutional program violated First Amendment rights," especially in the absence of any "disruption in the workplace."

Discrimination Decisions

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals issued two important decisions on workplace discrimination issues within a 48-hour span.

A marital status claimant prevailed in Taylor v. LSI Corp. of America, 781 N.W.2d 912 (Minn. App. 2010). A woman claimed that her employer discriminated against her because of the identity and situation of her spouse, a co-worker who was forced to resign at the same time she was terminated.

Reversing a ruling of the Hennepin County District Court, the appellate court held that the claimant stated a viable cause of action under the "marital statute" discrimination provision of the Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 24. Clarifying prior case law, the Court held that the statute does not require a showing that the discrimination constituted a direct attack on the "institution of marriage," but may apply to disparate treatment based upon the identity or status of a particular spouse.

Unsuccessful Unemployment

Claimants for unemployment compensation continued to be unsuccessful in nearly all cases decided by the Court of Appeals.

In Werner v. Medical Professionals, 782 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. App. 2010), the Court overturned the granting of benefits to a woman who quit her job after her company's relocation necessitated her to commute an additional 30 miles to work. The extra mileage, along with about $7 additional daily costs for gas for the round-trip commute, did not constitute "good reason caused by the employer" to justify the employee quitting.

An employee who peered at pornography on a computer at work, despite no policy prohibiting that practice, was denied unemployment compensation benefits in Brisson v. City of Hewitt, 789 N.W.2d 694 (Minn. App. 2010). Although most violative of any written policies, the employee's conduct, even though not in violation of any written proscription, constituted a "serious violation" of the standards an employer has a reasonable right to expect, which constituted disqualifying "misconduct" under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(1).

Zoning Zeal

A city's zeal in adopting an interim zoning ordinance imposing a moratorium on pawn shops was allowed by the Supreme Court in Pawn America Minnesota v. City of St. Louis Park, 787 N.W.2d 565 (Minn. 2010). A pawn shop challenged the adoption by the City of St. Louis Park's of an interim measure barring pawn shops. The action did not violate Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4(a) because the City first authorized a zoning study before adopting the interim measure.

Nor was the measure unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious because it was adopted "to protect the City's planning process with respect to pawn shops in general, and to examine the impact of pawn shops in the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens."

The past year has been an interesting and important one for litigants and lawyers in Minnesota. These dozen cases highlight some of their notable efforts in the last 12 months.