Court reporters ‘at-will’ employees

Listen to this article

Minnesota court reporters are at-will employees, and a judge’s decision to terminate their employment is not subject to arbitration, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a decision filed Jan. 24. The court, in a decision authored by Judge Theodora Gaïtas, affirmed the ruling of a district court.

The commencement and duration of court reporters’ employment is codified at Minn. Stat. § 486.01: “Each judge…may appoint a competent stenographer as reporter of the court, to hold office during the judge’s pleasure…” Citing the 1966 case State ex. Rel. Stubben v. Bd. Of Cty. Com’rs of Hennepin Cty., the court determined that the phrase “during the judge’s pleasure” indicated “employment at will.” The issue in this case, however, was whether being party to a collective bargaining agreement superseded this.

The case stems from 2019 firings. In September of that year, two district court judges terminated the employment of their court reporters, citing their alleged “disruptive and disrespectful conduct.” The court reporters, who are members of the Teamsters Local 320 union, requested arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement that was in effect.

While the Minnesota Judicial Branch (MJB) moved to dismiss the complaints, asserting that terminations could not be arbitrated, the matter went to arbitration for the purpose of determining whether or not arbitration was appropriate.

The arbitrator determined that the terminations were in fact arbitrable. At arbitration, the arbitrator appealed to the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), determining that judicial court reporters discharged from employment by the judges that appointed them would nevertheless remain on the employment rolls of the MJB. The arbitrator maintained that, while judges appointed court reporters, the actual employer of the court reporters was the MJB.

The arbitrator concluded that, as an employee of the MJB, which is a party to the collective bargaining agreement, a court reporter would be entitled to the administrative complaint process detailed under the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator wrote that “while a Judge may well have the right to remove a court reporter from his or her courtroom, the question of whether they remain employed by the employer is an arbitrable question.”

After the MJB submitted a motion for the arbitrator to reconsider the decision — which was denied — it petitioned for judicial review. At district court, Local 320 conceded that a judge does have the authority to discharge court reporters at any time and without cause. However, Local 320 maintained that, under PELRA, a discharged court reporter would remain on MJB’s employment rolls, entitling them to grievance procedures laid out in the collective bargaining agreement.

On April 27, 2021, Judge Leary vacated the arbitrator’s Sept. 8, 2020 finding, determining that, under PELRA, the parties’ dispute was not arbitrable. The union appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court first determined that while the 2019-2021 collective bargaining agreement lays out various issues that the parties agreed should be arbitrated, termination of court reporters by judges was not one of those matters. The court cited the language of the collective bargaining agreement, specifically the section that described issues not subject to arbitration: “powers granted to the Appointing Authority under statute or this contract are not subject to the Administrative Complaint Process” and continued by declaring that nothing “contained in this Administrative Review Procedure abrogates or diminishes the Appointing Authority’s right to appoint Employees or to remove an Employee from serving at the pleasure of the Appointing Authority.”

While the MJB pointed to the contractual language as an obvious support of their position, Local 320 maintained that the judge’s decision to remove a court reporter from their position was distinct from the MJB terminating the employment of a court reporter.  This dispute turned on what exactly “remove” meant in terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Although the MJB maintained that “remove” meant to “terminate employment,” Local 320 argued that it meant to remove from the courtroom.

The court declined to see the ambiguity in the term. Citing language from the collective bargaining agreement, the court found it patent that “remove” meant to “terminate.” The collective bargaining agreement itself used the terms “remove” and “terminate” interchangeably in various provisions and articles. Because the term “remove” was included in an employment provision, the court determined that the parties reasonably intended it to mean termination. It supported this reading by appealing to other parts of the agreement where the only interpretation of “remove” that would make sense would be termination. In a section titled “Separations”—which details what a court reporter is entitled to if they are either not selected by a new judge or for other reason—the term “remove” must clearly refer to the termination of employment, according to the court.

Furthermore, the court held that court reporters are at-will employees. It considered the meaning of the terms “during the judge’s pleasure” and “at their pleasure.” Citing precedent, the court determined that the term “pleasure” had a technical meaning — serving at the pleasure was synonymous with being able to be removed at the pleasure of the appointer. This supported the court’s determination that a court reporter is an at-will employee. As such, the employee could be dismissed by their employer for whatever reason, or no reason at all.

The court also noted that there was no conflict between the statute describing appointment and termination of court reporters and PELRA’s requirement that public employees go through a grievance process because PELRA has an exception for judges. As PELRA recognizes that court reporters are at-will employees, the court found no inconsistency between PELRA and the statute.