Many large public employers in Minnesota are faced with questions about the Veterans Preference Act and its application on a weekly, if not daily, basis.  However, many small employers may only field questions pertaining to the hiring and retention of honorably-discharged veterans once or twice a year.  So when we see a veteran’s preference hearing decision (yes, they’re putting new ones out again!) pertaining not only to the discharge of a veteran, but to the Act’s application, we feel it’s important to get it out to the masses.

In Roger Pohlman and The City of Red Wing, the veteran, the former police chief for the city, and honorably-discharged veteran, challenged his termination under the Veterans Preference Act.

The only problem is, the Veterans Preference Act specifically excludes department heads from appealing their discharge under the Act:

Nothing in in section 197.455 or this section shall be construed to apply to the position of private secretary, superintendent of schools, or one chief deputy of any elected official or head of a department, or to any person holding a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer… The burden of establishing such relationship shall be upon the appointing officer in all proceedings and actions relating thereto.

Minn. Stat. §197.46.

Nevertheless, former chief Pohlman pushed forward with his VPA appeal, and the parties agreed to submit briefs and exhibits, to arbitrator Phillip Finkelstein for a summary determination as to whether the Act applied to the former chief.

In defense of its position, the city provided documentation defining exactly what a department head was within the city, their budgetary authority, and police department policies (that the veteran was responsible for), which described the administrative freedom of the police chief.  It also showed that the veteran attended city-wide department head meetings.

To counter the city’s arguments, the veteran utilized several anecdotes regarding his lack of authority within the city, stating he could not demote or discipline officers, he was admonished by the city council, and he was “micromanaged by both the City Council and the city administrator.”

Despite the veteran’s arguments, there was enough evidence provided by the city to meet its burden of proof and show that there was no one in the police department with more authority than the police chief.  Decision maker Finkelstein found that all of the standards established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in McGinnis v. Police Civil Service Commission of Golden Valley were met for determining the veteran was the department head, and that the claims warranted summary disposition – meaning that a hearing was unnecessary and could be decided without testimony.  With that, the veteran’s request for a veteran’s preference hearing was denied.

While this case may seem cut and dry, it is important for employers to be aware of their rights when it comes to dealing with the hiring and firing of veterans.  Much expense and effort can go into defending an employer’s decision on separating a veteran from employment – make sure that yours isn’t wasted.  If you, or your organization, need assistance with regard to veterans preference rights, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.