You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Winberg v. University of Minnesota

Citations: 499 N.W.2d 799; 1993 WL 154357Docket: CX-91-2009, C3-91-2224 and CX-91-2009

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota; May 14, 1993; Minnesota; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed the applicability of the Veterans Preference Act to the University of Minnesota, focusing on whether the University qualifies as a 'political subdivision' under Minn. Stat. §§ 197.455 and 197.46. Historically, the Act had not been applied to the University for over eighty years. Two honorably discharged veterans, Roger Winberg and George Martin, Jr., pursued legal action after being denied veterans preference in hiring and termination processes, respectively, at the University. The lower courts and the Commissioner of Veterans Affairs had determined that the Act applied to the University. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that the University does not qualify as a political subdivision due to its lack of taxing authority and its distinct constitutional status controlled by the Board of Regents. The Court emphasized that the legislature had not explicitly included the University in the Act, and terms used would typically apply to entities with taxing powers. Consequently, the University is not bound by the Act, and the district court's injunction in favor of Martin was improperly granted, leading to a reversal of the court of appeals' decision. Justice PAGE did not participate in the decision-making process.

Legal Issues Addressed

Constitutional Status of the University of Minnesota

Application: The University of Minnesota's unique constitutional status as a corporation under the control of the Board of Regents means it is not subject to the Veterans Preference Act unless explicitly named.

Reasoning: The University of Minnesota, as a constitutional arm of the state, is not bound by the Veterans Preference Act unless explicitly named in the statute, according to Minn. Stat. 645.27.

Definition of Political Subdivision under Veterans Preference Act

Application: The Supreme Court of Minnesota determined that the University of Minnesota does not qualify as a 'political subdivision' under the Veterans Preference Act because it lacks taxing authority, which is traditionally associated with entities considered political subdivisions.

Reasoning: The University does not qualify as a political subdivision under the Act as defined by the Dahle v. Red Lake Watershed Dist. case, since it lacks the authority to levy taxes.

Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation

Application: The legislature's omission of the University from the Veterans Preference Act indicates that it did not intend for the Act to apply to the University.

Reasoning: The legislature has not included the University in the Veterans Preference Act despite numerous opportunities.

Limitation of Veterans Preference Act Application

Application: The Act does not provide for the inclusion of the University due to its specific language that traditionally applies to entities with taxing authority and not to entities like the University.

Reasoning: The Act’s terminology, such as 'school,' 'teacher,' and 'superintendent of schools,' aligns with primary and secondary education rather than university classifications.