Source: http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/briefs/a060324ca.html
Timestamp: 2017-11-17 23:20:02
Document Index: 390737763

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 268', 'art 3310', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268', '§ 268']

Briefs filed in Adar O. Ywswf, Relator, vs. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
CASE NAME: Adar O. Ywswf, Relator, vs. Teleplan Wireless Services, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A06-324
CITATION: 726 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
Did the ULJ fail in the duty to conduct the hearing as an evidence gathering inquiry, not an adversary proceeding, and fail to assist an unrepresented party? The ULJ did not address how these duties were fulfilled. Most Apposite Authority: Miller v. Int'l Express Corp., 495 N.W.2d 616,618 (Minn. App. 1993); Ntamere v. Decision One Corporation, 673 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. App. 2003); Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. l(b) (2005); Minn. R., Part 3310.2921 (2005).
Did the ULJ properly make the credibility findings required by statute when the case hinged on the credibility of the participants? The ULJ found the director of human resources for Teleplan to have offered more credible testimony than Ms. Ywswf without setting out the reasons for crediting or discrediting testimony as required by statute. Most Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. l(c) (2005)
Did the ULJ fail to consider persuasive, newly discovered evidence in refusing to reconsider the decision? The ULJ appeared to concede that it received a copy of Ms. Ywswf's school transcript on reconsideration. However, the ULJ made no reference to the three sworn affidavits from Ms. Ywswf's coworkers, stating that Teleplan never offered first-shift work to the Nokia workers when the Nokia work ended. Most Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(c) (2005)
Did the ULJ properly conduct the hearing? The ULJ properly conducted the hearing by permitting both parties ample opportunity to present their version of events and ask questions of each other. Most Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1(b) (2004); Minn. R. 3310.2921.
Did the ULJ properly make the credibility findings required by statute? The ULJ appropriately explained why Teleplan's Director of Human Resources offered more credible testimony than Relator. Most Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. l(c) (2004).
Did the ULJ properly consider all the evidence in reconsidering the decision? The ULJ properly considered all the evidence that was submitted in a timely fashion, and the ULJ appropriately ignored and/or accorded little weight to Relator's untimely documents. Most Apposite Authority: Minn. Stat.§ 268.105, subd. 2(c) (2004); Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988).
Under the law, an unemployment law judge (ULl) is required to assist unrepresented parties in presenting evidence, and to ensure that facts are fully developed. Adar Ywswf was offered the opportunity to cross-examine her employer, was told that this meant she could ask her employer questions, and stated that instead, she wanted to explain why she disagreed with her employer's testimony. Did the ULJ adequately explain or protect her right to cross-examine her employer?
Ywswf offered evidence after the hearing to demonstrate that she was not in school at the time she was offered employment, and the ULJ declined to remand the case on that basis, because whether or not she was actually in school was not the basis of the decision, as the ULJ explained. Did the ULJ err in not remanding the case for another hearing?
The law requires a ULJ to state the basis for credibility determinations where they are critical to a decision. The ULJ stated in this case that the employer's testimony was more credible than that of Ywswf, citing that it was unclear how the employer could have known certain facts if Ywswfhad not shared them with the employer as she claimed she didn't. Was this explanation inadequate under the statute, such that the case must be remanded for a new decision to be written?
The ULJ failed in her duties to assist Pro Se Parties and to conduct an Evidence-Gathering Inquiry.
The proposed evidence submitted with the request for reconsideration was sufficient to require a remand.
Respondents make erroneous claims about the standard of review.