Court Opinion

ID: 9885065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:28:50.684497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.640343
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge,
dissenting
I respectfully disagree and dissent. .The United States Supreme Court often has stated:
Statutes creating permanent irrebutta-ble presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 446, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2233, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973). In my opinion, this conclusive statutory presumption unconstitutionally denies due process of law. See State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247, 250, 15 N.W.2d 554, 557 (1944); see also Turner v. Department of Employment Security, 423 U.S. 44, 96 S.Ct. 249, 46 L.Ed.2d 181 (1975) (conclusive presumption that pregnant women are ineligible for unemployment benefits until six weeks after childbirth violates due process).
The conclusive presumption of misconduct in Minn.Stat. § 268.09 denies due process by denying an employee the right to submit evidence relating to actual misconduct, including the nature of the crime, who benefited from it, or whether the employee personally benefited. In this matter, the employer was aware of the problems involved with medical assistance, and relator acted in accordance with directions she received from the board of directors and her supervisor. She also received written authorization to sign Dr. Fleming’s name on the insurance form. The benefits from relator’s conduct inured to the employer; relator did not benefit personally.
Since relator had no reason to believe her conduct was illegal or even improper, relator should not be conclusively presumed guilty of misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes.1 Unfortunately, the irrebuttable presumption prohibits the Department of Economic Security from considering the relevant facts and circumstances and from determining whether actual misconduct existed.
Statutes creating artificial presumptions of fact and prima facie proof are by no means new or even modern. They have long been recognized and enforced by this court. * * *
Such statutes are of two general types: those creating conclusive presumptions of law or fact, and those creating rebut-table presumptions of fact or “prima fa-cie” proof. Those of the first type have *895met the almost uniform fate of being declared unconstitutional, as denying due process of law.
Kelly, 218 Minn. at 249-50, 15 N.W.2d at 556-557 (emphasis added).
The Minnesota Supreme Court should review this decision and determine the constitutional validity of this conclusive presumption.

. The presumption also operates as a windfall for the employer who is responsible for and benefited from relator’s illegal conduct but is not required to pay for unemployment benefits.