 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephens v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota2/10/2004
In this employment dispute, pro se appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent and the dismissal of her Public Employer Labor Relations Act (PELRA) claims. Appellant maintains that she is entitled to summary judgment and injunctive relief or, alternatively, that there are genuine issues of material fact surrounding her claims that respondent violated Minn. Stat. ยง 179A.13, subds. 1, 2(1), (4)-(6) (2002), and that respondent committed statutory defamation under PELRA. Appellant also moves to strike portions of respondent's appendix and brief. We affirm and deny appellant's motion.
FACTS
This is appellant's third appeal in this case. On July 9, 1997, respondent sent appellant a letter offering her employment as associate vice president. The letter stated that the associate vice president position was an annual position, renewable at the discretion of the appointing authority. The letter also stated that six months after employment, the Board of Regents would be asked to confirm appellant as treasurer. Appellant began employment with respondent on August 11, 1997.
The Board of Regents elected appellant as treasurer in November 1997. Under respondent's charter, the treasurer serves "during the pleasure of the Board." Appellant's position as associate vice president was renewed for 1998-99, and appellant received a pay raise. In November 1998, appellant wrote a letter complaining of a hostile work environment based on race and gender issues. Appellant filed a formal discrimination complaint on December 7, 1998. Respondent, in a report filed on February 1, 1999, concluded that appellant's claims were without merit. Appellant filed her complaint only with respondent; she never filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
In June 1999, the Regents reelected appellant as treasurer. The then-president of respondent renewed appellant's position as associate vice president for 1999-2000 and gave her a raise. At some point, appellant raised issues of poor fiscal management on the part of respondent and, in particular, that accounting methods led to inadequate fiscal control.
On September 21, 1999, a settlement demand in an unrelated dispute involving appellant's department stated appellant had been involved in "questionable business dealings" unrelated to her employment in which appellant was accused of "patterns and practices of fraud, misrepresentation, abuse of process, and a variety of other disturbing claims," including specific acts that were fraudulent or abusive of the legal process. Respondent decided to investigate, and appellant was placed on paid administrative leave while the investigation was conducted.
A meeting among appellant, the then-president of respondent, and the chair of the Board of Regents was scheduled for the day the report detailing the findings of the investigation was filed, but appellant decided not to attend the meeting and maintains that she was unaware the investigation was complete.
The investigation uncovered many legal and financial dealings by appellant that were of concern. Those concerns involved a lawsuit between appellant and Chrysler Financial, in which the district court stated appellant gave "misinformation" and mischaracterized the court's statements; the district court went so far as to say appellant had lied. The district court in that matter, after reaching these conclusions, refused to speak to appellant unless a court reporter was present. In that litigation, involving a real estate loan, the district court found that the deed transferring property to appellant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|