State ex rel. Jenson v. Civil Service Commission of City of Minneapolis, 39172

Decision Date17 July 1964
Docket NumberNo. 39172,39172
Citation268 Minn. 536,130 N.W.2d 143
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota ex rel. Roger W. JENSON, Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al., Respondents.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

A certiorari review of proceedings conducted before a board vested with authority to discharge a municipal employee protected against arbitrary dismissal by Minn.St. 197.46 and an established civil service system is governed by rules applicable to judicial review of an administrative function. Held, that the proceedings resulting in relator's discharge were initiated upon a proper notice, that he was afforded a fair hearing, and that the findings upon which his discharge was based were supported by substantial evidence upon the record considered as a whole.

Affirmed.

James Malcolm Williams, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Keith M. Stidd, City Atty., Arvid M. Falk, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondents.

ROGOSHESKE, Justice.

Relator, an employee of the city of Minneapolis in the public relief division of the Board of Public Welfare, was discharged from his position as a caseworker after notice of charges and a hearing before respondent Civil Service Commission. Upon application he was furnished a transcript and afforded a review of the proceedings by certiorari in the District Court of Hennepin County. Relator appeals from its order affirming the commission's decision.

The court determined after a review of the record of the commission's hearing--

'* * * that the evidence was sufficient to furnish a legal and substantial basis for said decision; that the said Commission's actions were reasonable and lawful and were not arbitrary, oppressive, nor unreasonable and that said Commission acted within its jurisdiction.'

Relator was hired on November 23, 1959. Under the city's charter provisions 1 and the rules of its Civil Service Commission, and as an honorably discharged veteran entitled to the benefits of Minn.St. 197.46, he could not be removed from his employment except for 'incompetency or misconduct' upon 'stated charges, in writing' after 'due notice' and a hearing before respondent commission.

On December 8, 1961, relator was given written notice by the head of his department charging him with 'misconduct' and suspending him without pay pending final action by the commission upon a request for his discharge. He demanded a hearing before the commission and made two successive requests in December 1961 and January 1962 for the details claimed to constitute 'misconduct.' In response, the department head by two letters set forth as specific examples of the claim of misconduct that relator was insubordinate in refusing to comply with orders and suggestions of his superiors and in exhibiting an attitude toward his work, his superiors, and recipients of public relief which was described as critical and negative and which inhibited his effectiveness and impeded the conduct of public business.

After 3 days of hearings conducted on January 25, February 28, and March 8, at which both sides presented much testimony and a large number of exhibits, the commission on April 12, 1962, made findings approving relator's suspension and discharge. Consistent with the written charges, specific findings of fact were made to the effect that contrary to the instructions of his supervisors relator on specific dates and on other occasions persisted in injecting irrelevant personal comments and criticisms into official case records assigned to him for investigation and report. The commission also found that he willfully disobeyed two direct orders of his supervisors to sign his dictation and that he persistently refused to comply with departmental customs, requirements, and procedures.

The discharge of a municipal employee who is protected against arbitrary dismissal by statute or an established civil service system is an administrative function. 2 Judicial review of such proceedings by certiorari is narrowly limited in scope. 3 Where proceedings before the administrative agency vested with final authority are instituted upon a notice which reasonably details the facts claimed to constitute misconduct so that the employee is given fair opportunity to prepare and defend; 4 where the charges made are of a substantial nature directed at the malfeasance or nonfeasance of duties assigned to the employee and which specially relate to and affect the rights and interests of the public; 5 and where the employee is afforded a fair hearing, 6 the findings upon which a discharge is based are to be accepted by the court unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 7 Under these rules to which we have long adhered, the administrative agency performs the factfinding function. Conflicts in the testimony and the weight to be given facts and circumstances as well as the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom are matters to be resolved by the agency, not the courts. The strictures of this type of judicial review require that both the trial court and this court refrain from substituting their judgment concerning the inferences to be drawn from the evidence for that of the agency. Unless there is manifest injustice, this limitation applies even though it may appear that contary inferences would be better supported or we would be inclined to reach a different result were we the triers of fact. 8

Contrary to relator's contention, this appeal presents no novel or unusual questions. In essence, all of his 25 assignments of error simply repeat the errors asserted against the respondent before the district court. Upon the record before us, the appeal to this court amounts to no more than an exercise of relator's statutory right to have the administrative proceedings twice reviewed.

From a careful review of the printed record submitted by relator, the supplement thereto supplied by respondent, and the exhibits, we agree with the district court that the proceedings were initiated upon a proper notice sufficiently detailed and adequate in substance and that relator was accorded a fair and full hearing conducted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Wilson v. City of Minneapolis, 41211
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 9 Mayo 1969
    ... ... charter of that city and the rule of its Civil Service Commission, unaffected by the ... the due-process-of-law provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions ...         3 ... See, State ex rel. Higgins v. Elsberg, 157 Minn. 177, 195 N.W. 902 ... 425, 116 N.W.2d 692; and State ex rel. Jenson v. Civil Service Comm., 268 Minn. 536, 130 N.W.2d ... ...
  • Swaaley v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 12 Mayo 1967
    ...to the State by the Fourteenth. He had already lost in the highest State court. State of Minnesota ex rel. Jenson v. Civil Service Commission of City of Minneapolis, 268 Minn. 536, 130 N.W.2d 143 (1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1023, 13 L.Ed.2d 962 (1965). Plaintiff was a welfar......
  • Caldwell v. City of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • 2 Junio 1992
    ...by substantial evidence on the record and not affected by errors of law, it must be sustained. State ex rel. Jenson v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 268 Minn. 536, 538, 130 N.W.2d 143, 145-46 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1023, 13 L.Ed.2d 962 (1965). An administrative board has an obli......
  • Jenson v. Olson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 16 Diciembre 1965
    ...Court and, upon appeal, affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. See, State of Minnesota ex rel. Jenson v. Civil Service Commission of City of Minneapolis et al., 268 Minn. 536, 130 N.W.2d 143, 147 (1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 943, 85 S. Ct. 1023, 13 L.Ed.2d 962 (March 15, 1965), in which ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT