The appropriate standard of review of a district court's determination that the State failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the public's interest in keeping the records unsealed outweighed the disadvantages to the petitioner of not sealing the records is a question of first impression for our court. Standard of review issues present legal questions subject to de novo review. See Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Dist. Council No. 14 v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 520 N.W.2d 453, 455 (Minn.App.1994). The district court's factual findings are not in dispute.
"Whether this court agrees with the arbitrator's decision is not relevant; courts will not overturn an award merely because they may disagree with the arbitrators' decision on the merits." AFSCME Local 551 v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 520 N.W.2d 453, 456 (Minn.App. 1994) (quotation omitted). An arbitrator's decision on the merits must be upheld if "it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement."
A party cannot use the dispute resolution process merely as a vehicle to investigate and test the viability of a cause of action. See AFSCME Dist. Council No. 14 v. Minneapolis Community Dev.Agency, 520 N.W.2d 453, 455, n. 1 (Minn.App. 1994) (statute of limitations would be tolled if matter in arbitration had involved a claim of unlawful discrimination under MHRA). A review of the grievance transcript reveals no specific facts to support Henry's contention that the hearing involved a claim of unlawful discrimination within the terms of the MHRA.