Opinion ID: 1248766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bess's May 19, 1997 letter to all sixth-grade parents

Text: The district court granted summary judgment for respondent as to this letter, holding that while use of the term paid leave would not violate the MGDPA, Bess's letter violated the MGDPA because the word medical was used in conjunction with the word leave. The court of appeals held that this was err. Navarre, 633 N.W.2d at 51. The MGDPA classifies as public: [D]ata that are only used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes, except to the extent that the release of time sheet data would reveal the employee's reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave   . Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(a)(8). Respondent argues that this section did not permit appellant to reveal that respondent was on medical leave because Bess was not responding to questions relating to respondent's payroll status. However, the statute classifies as public data    used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes and only prohibits revealing  the employee's reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave. Id. (emphasis added). There is no need to except the reasons for a medical leave from that which is public unless the fact that the employee is on a medical leave is public in the first place. [5] While respondent argues that she was not on a real medical leave, the propriety of the decision to place respondent on a medical leave is not before us and is irrelevant as to whether appellant violated the MGDPA by disclosing that it had in fact placed respondent on a paid medical leave. In fact, respondent requested the medical leave be extended through September 29, 1997. We hold that this information is encompassed within the statutory comparable data    used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes, which here was a paid leave that is an absence from work coupled with an expenditure of public funds for payroll purposes. Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(a)(8). Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals and hold that the district court erred by instructing the jury that Bess's May 19, 1997 letter violated the MGDPA.