Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Joshua D. Huston, Relator, vs. Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A03-175
CITATION: 672 N.W.2d 606 (Minn.App. 2003)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Does Minnesota Statutes § 268.085, subd. 4, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by denying eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits to certain individuals because they have been found eligible for Social Security disability benefits? The Commissioner's Representative held that it is proper for the Department of Economic Services to deny eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits to individuals who have been found eligible for Social Security disability benefits. Does this Court have the authority to void all or part of a statute because its provisions discriminate against persons with disabilities, in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? The Commissioner's Representative's decision does not address this issue. Would the Commissioner have a remedy allowing for an offset of a portion of Social Security disability benefits against unemployment compensation benefits if Minnesota Statutes § 268.085, subdivision 4(c) was declared void? The Commissioner's Representative's decision does not address this issue. Most Apposite Cases: Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 119 S.Ct 1597, 143 L.Ed.2d 966 (May 24, 1999) Weaver v. New Mexico Human Services Department, 945 P.2d 70 (N.M. 1997) Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) Statutes Relied On: Minnesota Statutes § 268.085, subdivision 4 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Whether the record reasonably supports the commissioner's representative's decisions that (1) Relator received primary social security disability benefits effective October 1, 2001 and so is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits beginning October 1, 2001; and (2) Relator, during this period of ineligibility, received $7012.00 in unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled, and so is required to repay those overpaid unemployment benefits to the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program Trust Fund. The commissioner's representative, Keith E. Goodwin, found in the affirmative. Most apposite statutes: Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 1 (2002) Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 4 (2002) Most apposite cases, not to exceed four: Tuff v. Knitcraft, 526 N.W.2d 50 (Minn. 1995)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S REPLY BRIEF:
Joshua Huston's appeal is not barred by the state's sovereign immunity. The 8th circuit allows title II ADA claims against states and state officials acting in their official capacities. There is no basis for respondent's contention that Joshua Huston could avoid the alleged overpayment by retroactively voiding his application for SSDI benefits. Joshua Huston w as determined to be ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits based upon a presumption of disability. The standards used in Shreve do not apply where, as here, relator is part of a protected class.