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: Michael Marn, Relator, vs. Fairview Pharmacy Services LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A07-1644
CITATION: 756 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF:
1. Did the unemployment law judge commit reversible error by concluding that patient advocate Marn was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits where he was fired for calling a contractor of his employer about patient safety concerns resulting from its contract after first reporting those concerns to two managers and the pharmacy board? The judge concluded that FPS discharged Mr. Marn for employment misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Apposite Legal Authority: Jenkins v. American Exp. Financial Corp. 721 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 2006); Sticha v. McDonald's No. 291, 346 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. 1984); Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2006). 2 Were Mr. Marn's substantial rights prejudiced by the unemployment law judge's refusal to require FPS to produce the tapes containing the statements on which it based Mr. Marn's discharge and, on reconsideration, her refusal to consider new evidence. The judge overruled Mr. Marn's evidentiary objections and denied his request to present new evidence. Apposite Legal Authority: Schulte v. Transp. Unlimited, Inc.. 354 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1984); Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau, 7 N.W.2d 501 (1943); Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1,2, 7(d).
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT FAIRVIEW PHARMACY SERVICES LLC'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
1. Whether the Unemployment Law Judge's decision that Relator was terminated for employment misconduct by Respondent Fairview Pharmacy Services, LLC is reasonably supported by the record. 2. Whether the Unemployment Law Judge was correct in allowing the admission of hearsay evidence. 3. Whether the Unemployment Law Judgment was correct in denying the Relator's request for reconsideration.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Under the law, an applicant who was discharged from employment because of a violation of the standards of behavior an employer had a right to expect of that individual as an employee is disqualified from the payment of unemployment benefits. Michael Marn, a patient financial advocate for Fairview Pharmaceutical Services left voicemails with a business partner of Fairview's in which he sought to persuade the business partner to terminate its contract with Fairview. The contract is worth millions of dollars and its termination would affect numerous jobs. Did Marn violate the standards of behavior Fairview had a right to expect of him as an employee? The Unemployment Law Judge found that Marn violated the standards of behavior Fairview had a right to expect of him as an employee, and held Marn disqualified from unemployment benefits on the basis that he was discharged for employment misconduct.