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: Scott M. Nelson, Relator, vs. Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A04-1930
CITATION: 698 N.W.2d 443 (Minn.App. 2005)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF:
Does inclusion of the time period of the "lock out" in the relevant time period so as to disqualify the Relator from TRA benefits, violate the intent of Congress in Title 19 U.S.C.S. §2102(4)? The Respondent held in the negative. Does the application of the 52 week period create an irrebutable presumption which violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, and the "due process" clause of the 5th and 14th Amendment? The Respondent made no ruling.
Also Filed - RELATOR'S APPENDIX
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Under the law an applicant is eligible for benefits under the Trade Assistance Act only if he has a qualifying separation within the certification period, and in the 52 consecutive calendar weeks prior to the qualifying separation, has 26 weeks of employment earning at least $30 per week in adversely affected employment. Scott Nelson's only separation from employment within the certification period occurred on August 7, 2000. In the 52 consecutive calendar weeks prior to that date, he did not have 26 weeks of earnings of at least $30 in adversely affected employment. Is Nelson eligible for benefits under the Act?
Also Filed - RELATOR'S REPLY BRIEF