Chad Nelson, Below v. Troy Schlener, Carla Brown, Below, Minnesota Department of Human Services
2015 Minn. LEXIS 44
| Minn. | 2015Background
- Troy Schlener, a former DHS background‑study researcher, accessed DVS driver‑license records ~1,964 numbers and 1,274 names; his DHS employment ended after an audit.
- Chad Nelson received notice his DVS records were accessed and filed a putative class action in federal court alleging violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act against Schlener.
- Schlener sought defense and indemnification from DHS under Minn. Stat. § 3.736; DHS denied the request, concluding Schlener acted outside the scope of employment and stated the decision was final with no internal appeal.
- Schlener petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari to review DHS’s denial; the court of appeals reversed, relying on State v. Tokheim.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear the certiorari petition and, if so, whether DHS erred in denying defense and indemnification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schlener) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a DHS denial of indemnification via writ of certiorari | Certiorari review is proper; Tokheim held § 3.736 decisions are quasi‑judicial and reviewable by certiorari | Statute requires determination by a separate "trier of fact," so certiorari to the court of appeals is inconsistent with the statutory review scheme | Court of appeals lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction; certiorari unavailable because § 3.736 provides a different review process |
| Meaning of "trier of fact" in Minn. Stat. § 3.736, subd. 9 | The agency (DHS) functions as trier of fact and its investigation suffices | "Trier of fact" denotes a neutral fact‑finding body (e.g., district court), distinct from employer‑agency | "Trier of fact" means an independent fact‑finder (typically a district court); agency is not the trier of fact under the statute |
| Whether Tokheim controls and should be followed | Tokheim supports certiorari review; thus court of appeals' review was proper | Tokheim is wrongly decided because it ignores statutory language giving final fact‑finding to a trier of fact | Tokheim overruled; it was incorrectly decided |
| Whether the Court should apply its jurisdictional holding prospectively to Schlener | Schlener urged prospective application (relying on Tokheim) and urged merits review for judicial economy | DHS argued jurisdictional ruling applies to this case and vacates the court of appeals’ decision | Jurisdictional rulings cannot be made prospective; the court vacated the court of appeals' decision and remand was not reviewed on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tokheim, 611 N.W.2d 375 (Minn. App. 2000) (court of appeals decision holding § 3.736 determinations are quasi‑judicial and certiorari‑reviewable)
- Willis v. County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1996) (certiorari available absent statutory authority for a different review process)
- In re Occupational License of Haymes, 444 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. 1989) (availability of certiorari where no statutory review provided)
- Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts are not triers of fact; their function is error correction)
- Minn. Center for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. 2002) (error where court of appeals weighed evidence as trier of fact rather than applying substantial‑evidence review)
- Baker v. Ploetz, 616 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2000) (statutes should be read to give effect to all terms)
- Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. 1982) (discussion of prospective application of judicial decisions)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1981) (jurisdictional ruling may not be made prospective)
- In re Civil Commitment of Ince, 847 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 2014) (district court recognized as trier of fact for weighing evidence)