Court Opinion

ID: 9528921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:18.301399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:28.191402
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
Rininger met his burden of proof under Board of Regents v. Heege because he proved the Board denied him a vacant position for which he was qualified while he was on valid leave. Therefore, he proved the Board violated its own policies. In other words, he established his grievance. The burden of going forward with the evidence then passed to the Board to show that the leave of absence was obtained by deceit. The Board failed to do this because its evidence of deceit, while very close, even equal, was insufficient to persuade the hearing officer or the circuit court. Therefore, in the final analysis, Rininger proved the violation or the grievance he alleged.* Board of Regents v. Heege, 428 N.W.2d at 542 n. 3.

 Footnotes 1, 2 and 3 of Justice Henderson's dissent fail to comprehend that the Board could have required reasons in writing before issuing the leave of absence to Rininger, but it did not. It simply issued the leave of absence. Therefore, Rininger did not have to prove absence of deceit.