2006-09-13 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, continlled that insurance waives the limits of governmental liability. The tort liability limits are waived to the extent that collectible insurance exceeds the tort liability limits. Increases to the TOrt Liability Caps In addition to clarifying the liability of joint powers entities, the Legislature phased in increases to the tort liability caps themselves. The limits had not been increased for ten years. Currently, the liability cap is statutorily set at $300,000 per individual claim and to $1,000,000 for all claims arising out of a single occurrence. Under the new law, the cap per individual claim will increase to $400,000 and the cap for all claims arising out of a single occurrence to $1,200,000. The increase will be effective for claims arising on or after January 1, 2008, but before July 1,2009. These caps will increase again on July 1, 2009 to the limits of $500,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. The delayed implementation to January 1, 2008, and the staggered increase in the tort liability caps will allow government entities covered by these caps to increase their insurance coverage gradually up to the new stanltory amounts. Municipalities will want to review their insurance coverage and increase as necessary in accordance with the effective dates. A municipality that fails to have insurance meeting these statutory caps on their effective dates could expose itself to additional out-of-pocket costs in the event of a successful lawsuit. Notwithstanding this, municipalities should keep in mind that procuring additional insurance coverage prior to the effective dates could expand its liability to the limits of the increased coverage. FIRST AMENDMENT, continlled In Pickering a teacher wrote a letter to a local newspaper regarding funding policies of the school district. The Court analyzed that case under a two-parr inquiry: 1) whether the employee was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern; and 2) if so, did the speech adversely impact the governmental entity's operation. The Pickering Court concluded that the teacher had been speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern in writing the letter, therefore implicating First Amendment protections. While recognizing rhat public employees have the right to protection when speaking as citizens on matters of public concern, the Court found that the controlling factor was that Ceballos wrote his memo pursuant to the duties of his position as a prosecutor. The Court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes and the Constitution does not insulate them from discipline by their employers. Ceballos was being paid to perform work and was acting as a government employee when he engaged in the conduct in question. His supervisors had the right to evaluate his performance of those duties, even if those duties required him to express opinions. "Supervisors must ensure that their employees' official communications are accurate and, demonstrate sound judgment and promote the employer's mission." Ceballos. Thus, when the employee's actions are inflammatory or misguided, the employer has the authority to take corrective action without the First Amendment being implicated. The Court contrasted this holding from Pickering where the employee's speech was not in the course of the employee's official duties and bore no official significance. The Supreme Court went on to note, however, that formal job descriptions often bear little resemblance to the duties an employee actually performs and that therefore, employers may not restrict an employee's First Amendment rights by drafting excessively broad job descriptions. The inquiry will rest on what duties the employee actually performs in determining whether First Amendment protections attach. Whistleblower Protections Still In Effect Despite the holding in Ceballos, the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 181.932 still protects employees, including public employees, who speak out regarding certain matters occurring in the workplace. In fact, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Ceballos, specifically recognized the existence of whistleblower statutes as a course of action available to those seeking to expose governmental wrongdoing. The Minnesota WhisdebluwCLAc[prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, threatening, otherwise discriminating against, or penalizing an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because: (a) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official; (b) the employee is requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation, hearing, mqUlry; (c) the employee refuses an employer's order to perform an action that the employee has an objective basis in fact to believe violates any state or federal law contillued 011 page 4 3