Neubert v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Nursing Center
Minnesota Court of Appeals
365 N.W.2d 780 (1985)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Mary Neubert (plaintiff) was a radiologic technologist employed at St. Mary’s Hospital and Nursing Center (St. Mary’s) (defendant). During one of Neubert’s weekend shifts, a physician from another hospital called to request a lung scan for a patient. The hospital’s switchboard operator informed Neubert. Neubert asked the operator to find an employee trained to conduct the scan or tell the physician he could make the request again the following Monday. Thereafter, the physician complained to St. Mary’s about how Neubert handled the call. Neubert’s supervisor placed Neubert on a 90-day probation, stating that Neubert should have personally taken the physician’s call. During the probationary period, Neubert was unable to access employment-related benefits, including vacation and sick leave. When Neubert was initially hired, St. Mary’s had provided an employee handbook that outlined a progressive disciplinary system that did not contemplate punitive probation and included a four-step grievance procedure. Instead of seeking conciliation under step four of the procedure, Neubert resigned, feeling that she had been treated unfairly. Neubert applied for unemployment benefits, and St. Mary’s objected. Neubert’s application was rejected on the basis that Neubert was found to have voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause attributable to St. Mary’s. Neubert sought administrative review, arguing that application of the 90-day probationary period was unwarranted and that St. Mary’s deviated from its procedures in taking the disciplinary action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lansing, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.