Rico v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Citations: 404 N.W.2d 404; 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4301Docket: No. C8-86-1877

Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; April 28, 1987; Minnesota; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rico, formerly a Personnel Director II at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), sought a “just cause” hearing after his employment was terminated, citing Minn.Stat. 43A.33 (1984). After 9½ years in a classified position, Rico transitioned to an unclassified role, Assistant to the Commissioner, following a request by the DVA Commissioner to reclassify his position. When removed from this unclassified role in 1986, he was informed he could return to a classified position but that it had been abolished, giving him the option to bump a less senior employee or accept a layoff, which he chose. Rico then filed claims for a “just cause” hearing, asserting he had been wrongfully terminated. The DVA moved to dismiss, asserting that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction as Rico was no longer a classified employee. The administrative law judge (AU) agreed, dismissing the case. Rico appealed, alleging he was retaliated against for raising complaints regarding mismanagement and misuse of funds within the agency. The court reviewed the AU's decision, affirming the dismissal on the grounds that substantial rights were not prejudiced and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, noting the standard for review as outlined in Minn.Stat. 14.69(e) (1986).

A permanent classified employee under Minn.Stat. 43A.33, subd. 1 (1984) can only be discharged, suspended without pay, or demoted for just cause, while unclassified employees under Minn.Stat. 43A.07, subd. 6 (1984) can be terminated with 30 days’ notice. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) argues that the appellant is an unclassified employee, thus not entitled to the same protections. The appellant claims his approved leave maintains his permanent classified status, citing completion of a six-month probationary period under 43A.02, subd. 30 (1984).

However, once he left the classified service, his status changed to inactive, as established by Minn.Stat. 43A.07, subd. 5 (1984), which stipulates that an employee on leave for an unclassified position retains inactive classified status but does not have an appeal right. The Administrative Law Judge (AU) concluded that this inactive status did not confer permanent classified status or a “just cause” hearing, allowing only for a return to classified service if the unclassified position ended. 

Additionally, the appellant waived rights to revert to a higher position, losing the permanent status necessary for an appeal under 43A.33. His rights following termination are thus governed solely by Minn.Stat. 43A.07. The terms of unclassified employment are dictated by the Commissioner’s and Managerial Plans per Minn.Stat. 43A.18 (1984). The appellant claims the Managerial Plan provides him greater protections, but the interpretation does not support his argument, as it allows termination of unclassified employees regardless of leave status. Although the appellant argues he earned the statutory protections through his years of service, no legal authority substantiates this claim, and the controlling statute, Minn.Stat. 43A.07, subd. 6, clearly outlines the conditions for removing a permanent employee from a declassified position.

An appointing authority can remove an employee from a declassified position after one year, provided they give 30 days' notice. During this notice period, the employee can request to be appointed to a comparable classified position within the same agency. If no comparable position is available, the employee should be appointed to a position similar to their previous one before the declassification. In this case, the appellant was terminated after more than one year in the unclassified role and received the appropriate notice as required by statute 43A.07, subd. 6. The Administrative Law Judge (AU) ruled that the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) lacked jurisdiction in this matter, leading to the dismissal of the case. The decision was affirmed. Additionally, while a party may rely on its trial court brief if they believe all arguments have been adequately covered, it is beneficial for appellate courts to receive a brief detailing the reasons for affirming or contesting the trial court's decision.