Bernard Doom, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1574

Bernard Doom,
Relator,

vs.

County of Lyon,
Respondent.

Filed April 24, 2017
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Lyon County Administrator

Benjamin D. Denton, Benjamin Denton, Attorney PLLC, Pipestone, Minnesota (for
relator)

Richard Robert Maes, Lyon County Attorney, Marshall, Minnesota; and

Ann R. Goering, Timothy A. Sullivan, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges his employment termination, arguing that
respondent’s decision to terminate him was oppressive and un reasonable and that he is
entitled to a post-termination evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Relator Bernard Doom worked in respondent County of Lyon’s highway
department for approximately 30 years. In ord er to communicate its expectations and
explain its policies, the county maintains an employee handbook. The handbook contains
specific language that it does not intend to: (1) “create a contract, expressed or implied”;
(2) “alter the ‘at -will’ relationshi p between employer and employee”; or (3) “guarantee
employment for any definite period of time.”
In February 2016, the county received a complaint from one of its residents, stating
that a county truck plowed snow on the driveway of a private residence on February 12,
2016, and dumped a load of gravel onto the same driveway on February 25, 2016. The
county reviewed photographs and videos taken by the resident, visited the private residence
to verify the accuracy of the photographs and video, determined that Doom was driving
the county truck at the time that the photographs and video were taken, and discovered that
Doom’s supervisor had not authorized him to deliver gravel to the private residence. On
February 26, 2016, the county contacted the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office to report a theft
of county property. Doom told an investigator that he delivered gravel to his son’s house
because the right-of-way of the driveway was too steep.
On March 1, 2016, the county informed Doom that it had initiated disc harge
proceedings against him for admitting to the theft of county gravel while in the
performance of his job . Doom’s employment was suspended , and his severance benefits
were withheld pending completion of proceedings.

3
The county scheduled a pre-termination hearing for Doom on June 30, 2016. At the
hearing, the county informed Doom of its basis for considering his termination, showed
Doom the photographs and videos, and gave him the opportunity to respond to the county’s
evidence. Doom did not respond or make a statement.
On August 4, 2016, the county notified Doom that his employment with the county
was term inated, effective March 1, 2016 , for violation of Lyon County Employee
Handbook policy 6.6.2 (A)1, commission of a criminal act during working hours . This
appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
In this certiorari proceeding, our review is confined to a determination of whether
the proceedings and termination were “arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, fraudulent,
under an erroneous theory of law, or without any evidence to support it.” Staeheli v. City
of St. Paul, 732 N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn. App. 2007). We will uphold the county’s decision
if it “furnished any leg al and substantial basis for the action taken.” Reierson v. City of
Hibbing, 628 N.W.2d 201, 20 4 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). “[W]e will not
retry the facts or make credibility determinations.” Id.
Doom first contends that the county denied him due process by failing to hold a
post-termination evidentiary hearing. An employee is only entitled to due process if he has
a property interest in his employment , which “stems from an independent source, such as
a statute or contract.” Phillips v. State, 725 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Minn. App. 2007), review
denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2007). An employer may prevent the formation of a contract right
if a disclaimer in its employment handbook clearly expresses the employer’s intent.

4
Roberts v. Brunswick Corp. , 78 3 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied
(Minn. Aug. 24, 2010). A t-will employees are not entitled to due process because they
have no property interest in their employment. Reierson, 628 N.W.2d at 204-05.
Here, the county’s employee handbook states that all employees are at-will and have
no specific employment contract. Doom concedes that the employee handbook specifies
that all county employees are at -will employees and cites to no statute or contract that
demonstrates that he has a property interest in his employment. Moreover, the county’s
employee handbook clearly expresses, by disclaimer, its intent to prevent the formation of
an employment contract . Because Doom was an at-will employee, we conclude that he
had no property interest in his employment and is not entitled to due process or a post -
termination evidentiary hearing.
Next, Doom argues that the county’s decision to terminate him was unreasonable
and oppressive because his termination case ran concurrently with his criminal case. “It is
well-established law that an at -will employee can be fired for any reason, or no reason at
all.” Id. at 204 (concluding that the termination of an at -will employee can never be
unreasonable or arbitrary). Because Doom was an at-will employee, he could be fired for
any reason or no reason. Consequently, we conclude that Doom’s termination was not
unreasonable or oppressive.
Affirmed.