Supreme Court Digest: Oct. 29, 2025

Listen to this article

Civil

Unemployment Benefits

Privileges

Appellant was terminated from employment at respondent after she reported to respondent’s staff that she was experiencing back problems. Appellant sued respondent under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations and disability discrimination. Before trial, respondent moved to exclude from evidence a questionnaire that it had completed and submitted to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) so that DEED could determine appellant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits. The District Court excluded the questionnaire, relying on Minn. Stat. § 268.19, subd. 2(c), which provides: “Information obtained under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law, in order to determine an applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits, are absolutely privileged and may not be made the subject matter or the basis for any civil proceeding, administrative, or judicial.” The District Court reasoned that the DEED Questionnaire should be excluded because it was “information created or generated solely” for purposes of an application for unemployment insurance benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that “information submitted to DEED for processing an unemployment-benefits claim is absolutely privileged and thus inadmissible in another civil, administrative, or judicial proceeding.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation, and held that, as used in Minn. Stat. § 268.19, subd. 2(c), the phrase “absolutely privileged” provides immunity from liability in civil actions for which information submitted to the Department of Employment and Economic Development, in order to determine an applicant’s entitlement to unemployment benefits, forms the subject matter or basis of the claim. § 268.19, subd. 2(c), does not state an evidentiary rule of general inadmissibility. Here, the District Court erred by excluding the document from evidence at trial, but the exclusion did not constitute prejudicial error. Affirmed.

A23-1879 McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. (Court of Appeals)