Preview:

Bruce E. Hein, Relator, vs. Gresen Division, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. C2-96-385, Court of Appeals Published, August 13, 19...

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C2-96-385 Bruce E. Hein, Relator, vs. Gresen Division, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. Filed August 13, 1996 Reversed Holtan, Judge* Department of Economic Security File No. 7448-UC-94 Carl M. Warren, Neil Kliebenstein, Student Attorney, University of Minnesota Civil Practice Clinic, 190 Law Center, 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (for Relator) Gresen Division, Dana Corporation, P.O. Box 1313, Minneapolis, MN 55440 (Respondent pro se) Kent E. Todd, Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent) Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Holtan, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. An employee who operates heavy machinery commits misconduct connected with work where he takes illegal drugs in violation of an employment agreement signed after a positive drug test, even if the employee took the drug while off-duty. 2. In determining whether an employee who was discharged due to chemical dependency has made reasonable efforts to retain employment, the Commissioner cannot require total and immediate disclosure by the employee of any relapse. OPINION HOLTAN, Judge The Commissioner's representative disqualified relator Bruce Hein from receiving reemployment insurance benefits, ruling that Hein was discharged for misconduct and did not make reasonable efforts to retain his job. We reverse.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/c296385.htm[4/16/2013 8:11:57 PM]

Bruce E. Hein, Relator, vs. Gresen Division, Respondent, Commissioner of Economic Security, Respondent. C2-96-385, Court of Appeals Published, August 13, 19...

FACTS For 22 years, Hein worked for Gresen Division, Dana Corporation, a manufacturer of hydraulic valves. At the time of his discharge, Hein worked as a lead person in the receiving department, and his duties included driving a forklift in a warehouse where other employees worked. On January 6, 1994, Hein's employer required him to take a drug test; Hein had been observed at work with glassy eyes and incoherent speech. Hein tested positive for cocaine and amphetamines. Hein was placed on medical leave of absence and completed chemical dependency treatment. On March 14, 1994, Hein returned to work and signed an agreement stating that, in consideration of continued employment, he would complete treatment and aftercare and submit to random drug testing for two years. The agreement also stated that Hein would be discharged if he failed another drug test. Hein attended all prescribed aftercare meetings between his return to work and his discharge. On May 20, 1994, when Hein's employer required him to take a random drug test, Hein tested positive for Dmethamphetamine, an illegal drug. Hein had taken the drug several days before, while off-duty. At an aftercare meeting on May 19, Hein failed to disclose that he had taken an illegal drug. Hein was discharged on May 20, 1994, for violating the March 14 agreement. [1] ISSUES 1. Was Hein discharged for misconduct? 2. Did Hein make reasonable efforts to retain employment? ANALYSIS An individual is disqualified from receiving certain reemployment insurance benefits if "[t]he individual was discharged for misconduct * * * connected with work or for misconduct which interferes with and adversely affects employment." Minn. Stat.

Download c296385.pdf

Minnesota Law