 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scheiderich v. City Of Minneapolis8/1/2000
In an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to vacate judgment, three former Minneapolis firefighters challenge the court's findings that the failure to request a trial de novo following arbitration was inexcusable neglect and that it is unlikely that they could prevail on their disability discrimination and reprisal claims. Because the record supports the district court's findings and because the court properly applied the law to the facts, we affirm.
FACTS
John Scheiderich, Leslie Winslow and Richard Johnson, three former firefighters for the City of Minneapolis, sued the city, alleging disability discrimination, failure to reasonably accommodate disability, and reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. §á363.03, subds. 1(2), (6), 7 (1998), similar violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (1994), and violations of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. §á181.932 (1998). At the end of their city employment, all three were working as inspectors in the Fire Prevention Bureau because of their physical inability to perform the firefighter duties. The city discharged Johnson after deciding that he was physically unable to perform the inspector duties or any other departmental light-duty job. Scheiderich and Winslow terminated their employment for reasons they contend amount to constructive discharge.
The parties selected non-binding arbitration as the pretrial alternative dispute process mandated in civil cases. See Minn. Stat. §á484.76, subd. 1 (1998); Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 114.01. Following a hearing at which both parties were represented, the arbitrator found for the city because the firefighters offered no evidence of damages, and because their liability evidence lacked the specificity required to satisfy their burden of proof.
The district court notified the parties of the arbitrator's decision and included a letter from the arbitration coordinator outlining the procedure for appeal and a form for making an appeal. The rules permit a party to appeal by requesting a trial de novo within 20 days of the filing of the award. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 114.09(e). If no appeal is filed within 20 days, the court enters judgment on the arbitration award. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 114.09(d)(2). The firefighters' attorney did not file a motion for a trial de novo and apparently did not send a copy of the court's notice to his clients. The district court entered judgment and notified all parties. The firefighters' attorney moved to vacate the judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(a). The district court denied the firefighters' motion, and this appeal followed.
DECISION
The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure provide relief from judgment under limited circumstances, including " istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(a); see also Nguyen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 487, 489-90 (Minn. 1997) (holding that party may bring motion to vacate arbitration judgment for mistake or excusable neglect under rule 60.02(a)). To prevail on a motion to vacate judgment for one of these four reasons, the moving party must demonstrate (1) a reasonable claim on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the rules; (3) it acted with due diligence after notice of the error; and (4) that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if the motion to vacate is granted. Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co., 237 Minn. 28, 30, 53 N.W.2d 454, 456 (1952). A reviewing court will uphold the district court's decision to grant or deny a rule-60.02 motion absent a clear abuse of discretion. Charson v. Temple Israel, 419 N.W. 2d
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|