Court Opinion

ID: 9884080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:35:12.735742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.383577
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, concur in the dissent of Judge Nierengarten, and would affirm the trial court for the following reasons:
1. In addition to the reasoning of Judge Nierengarten, it is important to note that the state legislature enacted Minn.Stat. § 43A.32, subd. 2, which provides:
Leaves of absence for elected public officials, candidates. Except as herein provided any officer or employee in the classified service shall:
(a) Take leave of absence upon assuming an elected federal or state public office, including elected state legislative office;
*252(b) Take leave of absence upon assuming any elected public office other than enumerated in clause (a), if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the holding of the office conflicts with his regular state employment;
(c) Upon his request, be granted leave of absence upon becoming a candidate, or during the course of his candidacy, for any elected public office; and
(d) Take leave of absence upon becoming a candidate, or during the course of candidacy, for any elected public office if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the candidacy conflicts with his regular state employment.
All requests for opinions of the commissioner and all opinions from the commissioner under the provisions of clauses (b) and (d) shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified mail.
The commissioner shall issue an opinion under the provisions of clauses (b) and (d) within seven calendar days of receipt of the request.

Id.

Since the legislature requires state employees to take a leave of absence upon becoming a candidate when the state’s representative, the Commissioner of Employee Relations, determines the candidacy conflicts with regular state employment, it would be unreasonable to determine that the governing bodies of other political subdivisions, such as the county here, could not adopt similar work rules requiring a leave of absence during a governmental employee’s candidacy.
2. Work rule 10.2(F) reasonably requires an employee to lake a leave of absence. Invalidation of the county rule, as done by the majority, would create a different classification of all other public employees as compared to state employees, and poses more severe equal protection constitutional problems than are present here.
3. The majority’s reliance on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is much too broad. Cleveland applies to permanent discharge and is being stretched much too far by the majority in their application to a temporary leave of absence.
4.Since the majority prevails, I can only recommend that this issue be addressed by the legislature to determine whether passage of legislation affecting all other governmental employees, in addition to state employees, is warranted or whether section 43A.32 is unduly restrictive of state employees. The possibility of conflicts on a local level is much more evident and apparent than might be that of a state employee becoming a candidate for public office. This apparent inequality of treatment between the various classes of public employees, state or otherwise, should be corrected.