Court Opinion

ID: 9689990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:51:14.375714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.147034
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
While I concur in the majority’s holding that Shockency failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the reason given for termination of his employment was merely a pretext for racial discrimination, I must respectfully disagree with the portion of the court’s opinion holding the proceeding was fundamentally fair. By extensively questioning witnesses and expressing his opinions about the testimony, one of the members of the Commission panel exceeded the bounds of his adjudicatory role and substantially compromised the fairness of the proceeding. Jefferson’s counsel found it necessary to interrupt and state for the record:
I think Commissioner Davis has set aside the cloak of being an impartial and fair hearing officer and taken on the role of an advocate and stating his opinion and cross-examining the witness [and] I object to that. I don’t think we’re getting a fair hearing and I would like that to be reflected in the record.
Procedural fairness requires a separation of the decision-making function from those of investigation and advocacy. Hymanson & Lucky Lanes, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 329 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn.1983) (Scott, J., dissenting, joined by Todd, J., and Yetka, J.). Even the appearance of unfairness should be avoided in adjudicatory proceedings. Minneapolis Police Department v. Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights, 425 N.W.2d 235, 242 (Minn.1988) (Popovich, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part, joined by Amdahl, C.J., and Yetka, J.).
We have encouraged administrative bodies, including the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights, to utilize administrative law judges to conduct hearings so as to avoid procedural unfairness or the perception of it. Id. at 242; Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 312 (Minn.1988); Kroll v. Independent School District No. 593, 304 N.W.2d 338, 345 (Minn.1981). The use of administrative law judges allows for the clear separation of the adjudicatory function from the advoca-tive and prosecutorial roles commissions and boards often have.
Here, the record plainly supports a finding that the proceeding appeared unfair to counsel for relators. I therefore repeat my recommendation to the MCCR and other such bodies to use independent administra*721tive law judges for hearings, to make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations to the body that renders a final decision.
YETKA and KELLEY, JJ., join the special concurrence of POPOVICH, C.J.