In the Matter of the Appeal of the determination of the Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Department of Transportation that certain data about Mao Yang are accurate and/or complete.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1333

In the Matter of the Appeal of the determination
of the Responsible Authority for the Minnesota Department of Transportation
that certain data about Mao Yang are accurate and/or complete.

Filed June 9, 2025
Affirmed; motion denied
Bentley, Judge

State of Minnesota Administration Department
File No. 22-3000-39310

Mao Yang, St. Paul, Minnesota (self-represented relator)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, William Young, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Transportation)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Oliver J. Larson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent Minnesota Department of Administration)

Considered and decided by Bentley, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Harris, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BENTLEY, Judge
Relator Mao Yang brings this certiorari appeal from the summary-disposition
dismissal of her contested case related to the accuracy and completeness of employment
data held by her employer, respondent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
Yang argues that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) recommendation for summary
disposition and a Department of Administration (DOA) decision adopting that
recommendation were erroneous because fact issues preclude summary disposition. She
2
also raises other issues that are related to her employment but unrelated to the challenged
employment data. We affirm.
FACTS
This case is about the accuracy and completeness of a job position description and
performance review concerning Yang, an employee of MnDOT. The relevant position is
the State Aid Projects Engineer in MnDOT’s Office of State Aid. 1 The record before the
ALJ and DOA, viewed in the light most favorable to Yang, reflects the following facts. 2
When Yang was hired as the Projects Engineer in May 2019, the State Aid
organizational chart conveyed that she would supervise the State Aid Pavement Engineer.
Within her first year of employment, the organizational chart conveyed that she would also
supervise the Local Agency Support Engineer. Both positions were vacant as of March
2020. Yang began the process to hire the Pavement Engineer. But before the position was
filled, MnDOT enforced a hiring freeze because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yang fell ill in early 2021 and went on medical leave from mid-February to mid-
April of that year. When she returned to work, she “initiated the ADA accommodations
process” and submitted a request to have a medically reduced workload from July 2021 to
June 2022, which was approved.

1 According to MnDOT, the Office of State Aid manages and oversees local bridge
replacements, among other things.

2 “When reviewing a summary-disposition decision, appellate courts view the facts in the
light most favorable to the party against whom summary disposition was granted.” In re
Lannon, 984 N.W.2d 575, 578 n.1 (Minn. App. 2022).
3
In July 2021, Yang met with her direct supervisor, M.V., to discuss State Aid’s
staffing needs. M.V. told Yang that the Local Agency Support Engineer position would
remain vacant. As for the Pavement Engineer position, M.V. stated that Yang and another
employee, B.M., would share the supervisory responsibilities. Yang “questioned and
challenged” that decision because she believed that her “essential responsibilities
chang[ed] during the ADA process.”
In November 2021, M.V. emailed Yang a description of the position that she and
B.M. were to supervise. The title of the role was changed from Pavement Engineer to
Assistant Projects Engineer. M.V. reiterated that Yang would work with B.M. to supervise
the Assistant Projects Engineer.
In January 2022, Yang met with M.V. to review her performance. In a written
performance review that Yang received afterward, her performance of specific
“Expectations” was rated based on “Key Performance Indicators/Measures” and
corresponding “Results Achieved.” Under a catch-all expectation entitled “Other Duties as
Assigned,” the performance review listed one indicator: “Hiring of State Aid Assistant
Projects Engineer.” The “Results Achieved” associated with that indicator stated, “Position
has not yet been filled.” Yang was rated “I” for “Needs Improvement” for that expectation.
The performance review also contained a section on “MnDOT’s Shared
Competencies.” One of the competencies, “Character,” captures “traits of self-awareness,
integrity, humility, accountability, dependability, and trustworthiness. Leads by example
and demonstrates respect for all.” Yang was rated as “I” for “Needs Improvement.” The
review explained, “This past year has resulted in several events when [Yang] has not
4
exhibited accountability or dependability. These events include not filling the State Aid
Assistant Project Engineer position[.]”
In March 2022, Yang emailed a MnDOT human resources (HR) employee
requesting “an updated [position description] . . . so that [she] can plan and remove tasks
that are no longer [her] responsibilities.” The HR employee sent a position description that
described a purpose of Yang’s position as, “To supervise the State Aid [Assistant Projects
Engineer] and pavement support program.”
Yang asked for “clarification” as to why the position description stated that she was
responsible for supervising the Assistant Projects Engineer. The HR employee stated that,
per Yang’s supervisor, she was “still responsible for providing leadership and supervisory
responsibilities” for the Assistant Projects Engineer, even though “the system can only
show one actual supervisor.” More specifically, the HR employee explained that both Yang
and B.M. would jointly supervise the position and “should collaborate on performance
reviews, performance management, etc. Since [B.M.] is the primary supervisor in the
system, he will be responsible for timesheet approval.”
In August 2022, M.V. sent a “letter of expectations” to Yang. The letter stated that
Yang was expected to “[w]ork collaboratively with [her] co-supervisor for the State Aid
Assistant Projects Engineer position to provide work directives, guidance, and direction
for all roles, tasks, and responsibilities related to [her] area of charge.” The letter also
directed Yang to “[p]erform [her] supervisory duties as a co-supervisor for the State Aid
Assistant Projects Engineer position[.]”
5
In September 2022, Yang contested the accuracy and completeness of her position
description and 2022 performance review. She cited a provision in the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. § 13.01-.991 (2024), that permits
individuals to “contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data about
themselves.” Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4(a). Yang directed her MGDPA request to the
responsible authority for data practices at MnDOT. See Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 16(a)
(defining “responsible authority” in a state agency to mean “the state official designated
by law or by the commissioner as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and
dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data”). With
respect to the position description, Yang asked to delete “two statements that . . . refer to
supervisory responsibilities.” For the performance review, Yang asked to delete the
sections labeled “Other Duties as Assigned” and “Character,” and the ratings from those
sections. The responsible authority responded with a letter stating that the data are accurate
and the performance review ratings “cannot be assessed for their accuracy or completeness
because they reflect the subjective judgment of the appraiser.”
In October 2022, Yang again contested the accuracy of her position description and
2022 performance review. She requested two similar edits to her position description. In
the section titled “Position Purpose,” she requested the following edit: “To supervise co-
supervise along with the primary co-supervisor the State Aid Assistant Projects Engineer.”
And in the section titled “Reportability,” she requested the following: “Supervises Co-
Supervise with Primary Co-Supervisor: State Aid Assistant Projects Engineer.” Similarly,
Yang requested that her 2022 performance review reflect that she was a co-supervisor.
6
Yang requested that her duties be edited to the following description: “Hiring of State Aid
Assistant Projects Engineer with Primary Co -Supervisor.” In the section about results
achieved for the that duty, Yang requested the following: “Position has not yet been filled
by both Co-Supervisors.” The responsible a uthority again determined that the data were
accurate and did not warrant any changes.
In March 2023, Yang appealed MnDOT’s determination to the DOA. Yang argued
that “[t]he position description should reflect the supervisor role/direct report roles,” and
that co-supervisors “cannot be reflected in SEMA4 and there is no such co-supervisor
training in the state agency training or policies.”
3 Yang also stated that her “position as a
Veteran is one of the reasons for [her] data challenge,” and she asked that her request be
reviewed under the Minnesota Veterans Preference Act, Minn. Stat. § 197.46 (2024). The
Veterans Preference Act provides that honorably discharged veterans “holding a
position . . . in the state civil service” may not be removed from their “position or
employment except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due
notice, upon stated charges, in writing.” Minn. Stat. § 197.46(a).
The DOA scheduled a hearing. MnDOT moved for summary disposition, arguing
that there was no genuine issue of material fact about the accuracy and completeness of the
data. Yang maintained that there was a fact issue as to whether her position description and

3 According to MnDOT, SEMA4 “is the payroll, human resources, and benefits system
used by the State of Minnesota.”

7
performance review were accurate because her position and duties changed from
supervisor to co-supervisor.
After a motion hearing, an ALJ recommended granting MnDOT’s motion for
summary disposition. In its memorandum, the ALJ explained that “[t]he challenged
position description and performance appraisal are reasonably correct and free from error,
and they reasonably reflect the history of [Yang’s] transactions with [MnDOT].” The DOA
adopted the ALJ’s memorandum in its entirety and issued an order granting MnDOT’s
motion for summary disposition. Yang petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. 4
DECISION
Yang argues that summary disposition was inappropriate because there is a genuine
issue of material fact: whether it was accurate and complete for the position description
and performance review to refer to her as a “supervisor” rather than a “co-supervisor.” She
also makes several arguments that do not relate to the accuracy and completeness of the
position description and performance review.
Under the MGDPA, data are accurate if they are “reasonably correct and free from
error.” Minn. R. 1205.1500, subp. 2(A) (2023). Data are complete if they “reasonably

4 MnDOT moved this court to strike portions of Yang’s brief, including a graphic
comparing MnDOT’s 2019 and 2023 organizational charts and her discussion of the
removal of responsibilities in her 2022 position description and her union representation.
Yang also moved this court to resubmit her reply brief to assign a different label to the
graphic and resubmit her response to the motion to strike with a revision to the cover page.
We deny the motions as moot because we do not rely on the challenged portions of Yang’s
brief in reviewing the DOA’s grant of summary disposition. See Justice v. Marvel, LLC ,
979 N.W.2d 894, 903 n.9 (Minn. 2022) (declining to decide the merits of a motion to strike
extra-record testimony in a brief because the court did not rely on that testimony in its
analysis).
8
reflect[] the history of an individual’s transactions with the particular entity” and do not
contain “[o]missions in an individual’s history that place the individual in a false light[.]”
Id., subp. 2(B).
To contest the accuracy and completeness of data, an individual subject of the data
must notify the responsible authority of the government entity in writing about the “nature
of the disagreement.” Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4(b). Then, within 30 days, the responsible
authority must either “correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete” or “notify the
individual that the responsible authority has determined the data to be correct.” Id., subd.
4(c). An individual who wishes to appeal the responsible authority’s determination may do
so “pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act relating to contested
cases.” Id., subd. 4(d); see also Minn. R. 1205.1600, subp. 1 (2023).
Contested cases may be resolved on summary disposition, which is “the
administrative equivalent of summary judgment.” Pietsch v. Minn. Bd. of Chiropractic
Exam’rs, 683 N.W.2d 303, 306 (Minn. 2004) (citing Minn. R. 1400.5500(K) (2003)).
Summary disposition is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Minn. R. Civ. P.
56.01; Pietsch, 683 N.W.2d at 306. This court reviews the grant of summary disposition
de novo to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and “whether there
was an error in applying the law to the facts.” See Pietsch, 683 N.W.2d at 306 (providing
summary-judgment standard of review for case resolved on summary disposition).
Here, the contested data are limited to “two statements in [Yang’s] position
description referring to her supervisory responsibilities; sections in her 2022 performance
9
appraisal relating to her supervisory responsibilities; and, the ratings she received in those
sections.” We address Yang’s arguments relating to this data before turning to Yang’s
additional arguments.
I
Yang argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact about the accuracy and
completeness of the specific duty listed in her position description that she will supervise
the Assistant Projects Engineer. Yang contends that she was instead assigned to “co-
supervise” the Assistant Projects Engineer. MnDOT argues that “[t]he undisputed facts
demonstrate that Yang’s work as the Project Engineer involved, among other things,
supervising another staff member.” The DOA concurred with MnDOT.
We agree that Yang failed to offer evidence sufficient to raise a fact issue about
whether the position description is inaccurate or incomplete. A “supervisor” is defined as
“[s]omeone who has authority over others; a manager or overseer.” Black’s Law Dictionary
1745 (12th ed., 2024). It is undisputed that Yang had authority to perform “supervisory
duties as a co-supervisor,” which include hiring, conducting performance reviews, and
providing feedback, coaching, and discipline. Yang disputes that she “accept[ed]” those
job duties, but she offers no rebuttal to the fact that she was assigned those duties. The
DOA therefore did not err in concluding that there is no genuine issue of material fact that
Yang’s position description is accurate and complete.
Yang also argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact relating to the accuracy
and completeness of her 2022 performance review because, like the position description,
it describes her as a supervisor instead of a co-supervisor. On appeal, she seems to have
10
abandoned her challenge to two components of the performance review that she raised
below to MnDOT and the DOA: the performance rating of “Needs Improvement” related
to her failure to fill the Assistant Projects Engineer position, and the statements under the
“Character” section of her performance review. 5 In any event, she does not point to
evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her performance
review’s description of her as a supervisor is inaccurate. Yang might disagree with her
assignment as a co-supervisor, but there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether
that assignment occurred.
II
Having concluded that the DOA did not err in determining that there were no
genuine issues of material fact about the position description and performance review, we
turn to arguments that were either outside the scope of Yang’s MGDPA challenge or raised
for the first time on appeal.
First, we emphasize that the DOA had a narrow task: to determine whether the
specific data that had been reviewed by the MnDOT responsible authority were accurate
and complete. See Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4 (2024). The data that Yang submitted to the
responsible authority are her performance review and position description. Other issues—

5 MnDOT addresses the accuracy of the “Needs Improvement” rating contained within
Yang’s performance review. We do not fully address that issue because it was not briefed
by Yang. See State, Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 480,
480 (Minn. 1997) (declining to reach issue that was inadequately briefed). But we note, as
MnDOT points out, that Yang does not identify any facts that would render the subjective
determination of “Needs Improvement” inaccurate, and “mere dissatisfaction with a
subjective judgment or opinion cannot support a challenge under the Data Practices Act.”
Schwanke v. Minn. Dep’t. of Admin., 851 N.W.2d 591, 595 (Minn. 2014).
11
including data in SEMA4 and Yang’s rights under the Veterans Preference Act, Minn. Stat.
§ 197.46—did not concern the data that Yang submitted to the MnDOT responsible
authority. The DOA did not err by considering only the issues within the scope of its narrow
task.
Second, we decline to review issues raised for the first time in briefing to this court.
We generally consider only those issues that were presented and considered by the
decision-maker below. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988); see also State
by Beaulieu v. Clausen, 491 N.W.2d 662, 665 n.2 (Minn. App. 1992) (applying Thiele in
an appeal from an ALJ’s decision), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1992). Yang argues that
she does not meet the definition of “supervisory employee” under the Public Employee
Labor Relations Act, Minn. Stat. § 179A.03, subd. 17 (2024). And MnDOT argues that the
position description is not data on “an individual,” and so is not subject to a challenge under
Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4(a). Based on our careful review of the record, we conclude
that neither argument was before the DOA. We therefore decline to consider them.
We recognize that Yang objects to what she perceives as a reduction in her
responsibilities in violation of her rights as a veteran and in response to her taking medical
leave. But the MGDPA challenge concerned only the accuracy and completeness of her
position description and performance review. We discern no error in the DOA’s grant of
summary disposition because there is no genuine issue of material fact that could affect a
determination of whether the challenged data are accurate and complete.
Affirmed.