Yufan Zhang v. UnitedHealth Group, et al.

In this case, the evidence Zhang used to have as proof of his claims was taken away and destroyed by UnitedHealth Group at time Zhang was fired because UnitedHealth Group considered Zhang’s evidence as the company’s intellectual property. Therefore, UnitedHealth Group prohibited Zhang from keeping or taking any evidence with him. However, Arbitrator Keyes and the District Court of Minnesota required Zhang to provide “clear and convincing evidence” to support or prove his claims, but the Judge and the district court did not require the Respondents to provide any “clear and convincing evidence” to support their claims. Even the Respondent’s declaration, which did not have any material evidence to support it, was used by the District Court to rebut Zhang’s claims. Moreover, any findings of fact were set aside as long as they conflicted with the Arbitrator’s decision, even though Zhang declared that his findings could be proved by the job-related evidence which UnitedHealth Group possesses, and Zhang even proved them via preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the questions presented are: 1. Whether it is in error, or in violation plaintiffs right of equal protection of the laws, that the lower court imposed the burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence on the plaintiff when the Plaintiff demonstrated, based on both parties' testimonies, how the Respondents intentionally omitted or