*1 NELSON, al., Appellant, Jeffrey et B. Commissioner-desig PETERSON,
Harry Department of Labor
nate Minnesota Industry, al., Respondents. et
No. 81-737.
Supreme of Minnesota. Court
Dec. 1981. Corwin, Park,
Gregg Louis for M. St. appellant. Gen., Atty. Erica Spannaus,
Warren Gen., Paul, Jacobson, Sp. Atty. Asst. St. respondents.
TODD, Justice. appeal by plaintiffs, who are
This is an petitioners’ attorneys Department for the Industry, de- of Labor and from an order claring that Act of June 103, 1981 Laws Minn.Sess. Serv. 1611, 16761 is constitutional. We find sec- persons positions tion 103 denies protection guar- plaintiffs equal of the laws and Min- anteed both the United States constitutions, accordingly, nesota reverse.
Chapter passed by a the 1981 346 is bill Legislature comprehen- Minnesota Comрensation sively the Workers’ revises Among system in Minnesota. changes, specifically excludes cer- this bill Compensa- tain in the Workers’ Department of Labor tion division of eligible ap- Industry being from compensation judges. pointment as provides: Section attornеy acting pursuant No Section appointed shall be hired or 176.261 compensation judge for a of two following years termination of service with the division. (1980) provides: 176.261
Minn.Stat. §
176.262.
§
To be codified at Minn.Stat.
*2
581
by
or
requested
employer
every
When
an
an
attorney, compensation
state defensе
dependent,
employee or his
the commis-
counsel
the
attorney
and
in
division
department
initially pass. Thus,
sioner of the
of
and must
every compensa-
labor
industry may designate
of
judge appointed
one or more
tion
from the division
par- must,
employeеs
necessity,
the
to advise that
spent
division
of
have
some
ty
time,
brief,
rights
chapter,
petitioner’s
of his
and as
of
under
however
aas
possible
adjusting
attorney.
compensation
far as
to assist in
dif-
The new workers’
parties.
bill
person
compensation
ferences
the
The
also states that
judges
between
may appear
must
designated
person
so
in
in
“be learned in the law
have
[and]
knowledge
demonstrated
any proceedings
chapter
under this
the
of workers’
com-
* *
pensation
representative
1,1981,
laws
*.”
Junе
party.
adviser of
Act of
or
the
346,
2
case,
party
repre-
(amending
section
In such
need
Minn.Stat.
the
not be
15.052,
(1980)).
section 1
attorney
§
by
sented
an
at law.
parties agree
The
that
the
parties
standard of
By stipulation,
agreed
both
applicable
review
in the instant case is the
acting
pursuant
that
to section
familiar rational basis
we recently
test. As
only petitioners
represent
176.261
work-
in
stated in
v.
Guilliams Commissioner of Rev
compensation
proceedings.
ers’
enue,
138,
(Minn.1980),
299 N.W.2d
142
only
section 103 excludes
at-
division
torneys
reprеsent
who
in work-
This court has listed three factors in
compensation proceedings. Attorneys
ers’
measuring
statutory
classification
regularly
represent
against
equal protection requirement:
division who
the
the
state of
Minnesota
defendant
in such
“(1)
separаte
The distinctions which
proceedings,
special
attorney
the
assistant
those included within the classification
general representing
Special
the
in
Fund
from those excluded must not be mani-
cases,
(who
Compensation
such
the
Counsel
arbitrary
festly
or
but
fanciful
must be
supervises
ap-
the division
genuine
substantial,
thereby pro-
proves settlements),
supervisor,
his
viding a natural and reasonable basis to
eligible
all
judgeships.
legislation
justify
adapted
peculiar
Furthermore, private attorneys
rep-
who
needs; (2)
conditions and
the сlassifica-
resent
plaintiffs
either
or
defendants
genuine
tion must be
or relevant to the
matters,
workers’
even if
law;
is,
purpose of the
that
there must
they
represent
par-
exclusively
type
one
of
be an evident
between
connection
the
ty, are
eligible.
also
peculiar
distinctive needs
to the class
prescribed
(3)
remedy;
pur-
the
the
undisputed
The state
an
offered
affidavit
pose
be
of
statute must
one that
every compensation
to the
judge
effect that
can legitimately attempt
state
currently
sitting
previous
on
bench had
achieve.”
experience.
petitioner’s
as a section 176.261
attorney.
State,
quoting
Brewing
The record and oral
Miller
284
Co.
practice
further
(Minn.1979).2
disclosed that
in the N.W.2d
We do not
pass
workers’
division
judgment upon
was and is
sit to
wisdom
of a
rеquire
attorney
every
particular
legislative
hired
that
into
scheme. We are
however,
begin
bound,
division to
employment
by
his tenure of
our constitutional man-
petitioners’ attorney.
is,
as a
position
inquire
That
date to
into the
of
arbitrariness
effect,
entry-level
an
through
legislative
one
we
classifications.
now do.
This
legislature
2. We
upon
independent
do not
find that
recent United States
based
its own
Supreme
legislative
Court decision
State of Minnesota
evaluation
Under
facts.
Guil
Creamery Co.,
liams,
proposi
v. Clover Leaf
449 U.S.
we continue to
adhere to
(1981),
analyze
S.ct.
represented working agency. while at the I dissent for these reasons: Therefore, by logic, this the state’s defense attorneys should be excluded also under The principle that courts should be slow importantly, analogy sеction 103. More to declare special laws unconstitutional has is inapposite: those federal statutes are force where dealing legislative we are with preventing concerned with conflicts of in- to employers efforts balance interеsts of improper terests and use of influence and in the field of workers’ com- employer colleagues. before a former pensation by Legislature created in with, They not concerned and do not first uniquely instance and therefore sub- prohibit, agency attorneys becoming admin- ject Particularly its authority. to is judges, istrative is the relevant anal- here, where, adjustments case as to the law ogy. been, significant part, product in Third, the state asserts state’s agreement. compromise posi- improving diversity interest of expe- in compensation judge tion of workers’ not is rience of the bench is ration- public office, case, being ally legislature served 103: the section Legislature authority specify has to reason- rationally that, may “have believed” be- qualifications appointed able compensation judges pre- cause all current posts. these viously attorneys, acted as section 176.261 Legislature It is reasonable for the backgrounds,” and therefore “had similar prefer occupational Yet, experience compounded. problem bias was as revealed, persons compen- the record and oral named to serve as workers’ judges most served considera- judges has sation be more diversified than periods capacities ble of time than past. been the case in the Given the fact plaintiffs: many represent- compensation judges that all workers’ serv- prior companies ed the state or insurance ing passed the law as such when was had appointments judges. their previously been at Section 176.261 backgrounds already. their varied Fur- careers, stage professional I some in their thermore, by permitting private attorneys Legislature rationally believe the acted eligible regardless background to be of their placing employ- a limited restraint on the law, workers’ judges ment at this time of additional hav- operate rationally does not to further ing experience the same kind in their goal. asserted professional background. Wegan Village Lexington, As in v. (Minn.1981), N.W.2d we find that PETERSON, (dissenting). Justice * * * fatally statute is defective be- “[t]he join in I the dissent of Chief Justice satisfy Sher- cause it cannot Guiiliams’ first and classifications are not an. second factors.” The
SIMONETT, (dissenting). Justice Justice of Chief Sher- join
I in the dissent
an. ALLIANCE,
MINNESOTA RECIPIENTS Plaintiffs, al.,
et
v. NOOT, al., et Defendants
Arthur E. Plaintiffs, Party
Third al., SCHWEIKER, et Third D.
Richard
Party Defendants.
No. 81-1031. *5 Minnesota.
Supreme Court of 17, 1981.
Dec.