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: Martin Garcia, Relator, vs. Alstom Signaling Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A06-660
CITATION: 729 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)
Legal Issues in PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
- Did the Commissioner err as a matter of law by failing to apply the express language of Minn. Stat. §268.085, subd.3(a) and (b)? The Unemployment Law Judge answered NO. Markel v. City of Circle Pines, 479 N.W.2d 382 (Minn. 1992) Brookfield rade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390 (1998)
- Did the Commissioner err in failing to consider the contractual relationship between petitioner and the employer, which precluded petitioner from receiving severance benefits during the time period petitioner was receiving unemployment benefits? The Unemployment Law Judge answered NO. Ackerson v. Western Union Telegraph, 234 Minn. 271,48 N.W.2d 338 (1951); Busch v. Reserve Mining Company, 415 N.W.2d 892 (Minn.App.1987); Auren v. Belair Builders, Inc., 2006 WL 771394 (Minn.App.2006) APP.at 0074-0077.
- Was the application of Minn. Stat. §268.085, subd.3(a) and (b) by the Commissioner on the facts of this case violative of petitioner's rights of due process, equal protection and freedom from impairment of contract under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions? The Unemployment Law Judge answered NO. Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 98 S.Ct. 2716 (1978); New London Nursing Home, Inc. v. Lindeman, 382 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. App. 1986).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT - DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
- Minnesota law specifies that severance payments are, for the purposes of determining their effect on unemployment benefits, applied to the period immediately following the last day of employment, no matter when they are actually paid. Martin Garcia's last day of employment was May 24, 2005, and he began receiving severance in November 2005. Did the unemployment law judge correctly allocate the benefits to the period immediately following May 24, 2005, rather than to the period following the pay date?