Laserfiche WebLink
Zittal now appeals the decision of the Board, claiming that <br />his due process rights under the United States and Minnesota <br />Constitutions have been violated by failure of the City to give <br />sufficient notice of the charges upon which termination was based <br />and by the improper influence, of the Winona City Attorney prior to, <br />during, and after the hearing, which essentially deprived him of a <br />fair and impartial hearing. Zittel also contends that the Board <br />made numerous errors of law at the hearing by admitting evidence <br />which was irrelevant, prejudicial and lacking in foundation. <br />Finally, Zittel asserts that the Board's Conclusions of Law were <br />not supported by the evidence and were contrary to law. <br /> <br /> II. APPLICABLE LAW <br /> <br />The Veterans Preference Act, Minn. Stat. § 197.46 (.!992)~ <br />Lprohibits a public employer from removing an honorably discharged <br /> <br /> veteran from employment "except for incompetency or misconduct <br /> <br />shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upon stated charges, in <br /> <br />~%-riting." <br /> <br /> The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that there is no <br /> significant difference between the "misconduct" ra_cuired under the <br /> Veterans Preference Act and the "just cause" required by Minn. <br /> Stat. § 44.08, subd. 1 (1992), in the absence of which no city <br /> employee may be dismissed or suspended. Leininqer v. City.of <br /> Bloomington, 299 N.W.2d 723, 726 (Minn. 1980). Therefore, the <br /> applicable standard to determine misconduct is as follows: <br /> <br /> 'Cause' or 'sufficient cause,' means 'legal cause,' and not <br /> any cause which the council may think sufficient. The cause <br /> must be one which specially relates to and affects the <br /> admihistration of the office, and must be restricted to <br /> <br /> --4-- <br /> <br /> <br />