 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Neumann v. AT&T;Communications9/14/2004
ailability of employment, . . . written rules promulgated by the employer with respect to seniority or the provisions or any collective bargaining agreement shall govern. . . .
Neumann was terminated from her employment with AT&T;52 weeks after she went on medical leave because she was unable to return to her prior job under AT&T;s unwritten return-to-work policy. AT&T;notified Neumann several times during her medical leave that if she were not able to return to work after receiving 52 weeks of disability benefits, her employment would be terminated. This meant that Neumann had to be able to return to work by October 12, 1999. The unwritten return-to-work policy for the department in which Neumann worked (customer sales and service) was described to Neumann's Qualified Rehabilitation Consultant (QRC), who was working with Neumann and AT&T;regarding Neumann's return to work, as requiring that an employee returning from medical leave must be able return to full-time employment within 30 days of beginning employment at reduced hours. But a reduced-hours work schedule could be extended by one or two weeks in "rare" circumstances.
On September 9, 1999, Neumann's QRC faxed a return-to-work proposal to AT&T;under which Neumann would begin work on September 20, 1999, and would work four hours per day, three days a week for two weeks, four hours per day, four days a week for the third week, and four hours per day, all five days of the fourth week. Neumann's doctor would then reevaluate her regarding her ability to return to full-time employment. Neumann planned to return to work on this schedule. On the morning of September 20, 1999, the day Neumann was to begin working, AT&T;informed the QRC that in addition to the unwritten policy about returning to full time employment within 30 days of beginning at reduced work hours, AT&T;also had an unwritten policy that the employee's reduced work hours must be a minimum of four hours per day, five days per week. This was the first notice that the QRC or Neumann had about a policy regarding minimum reduced hours. Neumann was not able to meet the requirements of this policy within the time period allowed.
Neumann argues that the district court erroneously placed the burden on her to show that her termination was without reasonable cause and to, as the district court stated, "come up with a plan to return to work." Neumann asserts that Minn. Stat.§ 176.82, subd. 2, should be interpreted to require the employer, not the employee, to establish reasonable cause to terminate and to locate and offer a suitable position within its entire business, not just an available opening in the employee's prior position. Neumann never inquired about working in another department, and AT&T;never discussed with Neumann or her QRC the option of work in another department.
The issue of who has the burden of proof in a claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2, was not briefed, argued, or decided in the district court. And there are no cases construing Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2. This court will generally not consider matters not argued and considered in the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). Because we are remanding this case to the district court, the parties will have an opportunity to address this issue, and we decline to address it at this time.
Neumann argues that the district court improperly viewed the evidence in favor of AT&T;on the summary-judgment motion when the court concluded that AT&T;s unwritten return to work policy "was in effect for legitimate business reasons" providing reasonable cause for her termination when she could not meet the policy. And Neumann a
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|