Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

An employee began working at a foundry in Minnesota and, after developing back problems, was placed on a lifting restriction by her doctor. She informed her employer of this restriction, but the employer terminated her employment without attempting to provide accommodations. The employee then applied for unemployment benefits, prompting the employer to complete a questionnaire for the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) regarding her termination and disability. In the questionnaire, the employer indicated it had not tried to accommodate her condition.The employee subsequently filed a lawsuit under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. During discovery, the employer sought to exclude the DEED questionnaire from evidence at trial, arguing it was absolutely privileged under Minnesota Statutes section 268.19, subdivision 2(c). The District Court agreed and excluded the document, reasoning that information created solely for unemployment insurance purposes was inadmissible in other civil proceedings. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the employer and dismissed the employee’s claims. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the questionnaire was absolutely privileged and inadmissible.The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed the case to determine whether section 268.19, subdivision 2(c), bars admission of such documents in civil cases. The court held that the phrase “absolutely privileged” in the statute provides immunity from liability for information submitted to DEED, but does not create a general rule of inadmissibility for such evidence in unrelated civil proceedings. Because the employee’s discrimination claim was not based on the content of the DEED questionnaire, its exclusion was erroneous. However, the court found the error was not prejudicial, as the excluded evidence was cumulative of other admitted evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, but on different grounds. View "McBee vs. Team Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

A middle school math teacher employed by a Minneapolis public school was injured while playing basketball with students during an afterschool practice. The teacher participated in the activity to strengthen relationships with students, which was encouraged by the school’s administration and reflected in the school’s mission and teacher evaluation standards. The injury, a ruptured ACL, occurred approximately 30 minutes after the official end of the teacher’s workday, at the school gym, and required surgery and time off work. The teacher sought workers’ compensation benefits, but the self-insured school district denied liability, arguing the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment and was excluded under a statutory provision for injuries incurred during voluntary employer-sponsored recreational programs.After an administrative hearing, a workers’ compensation judge found the injury compensable, concluding it arose out of and in the course of employment, and that the statutory exclusion for voluntary recreational programs did not apply because the activity was for the benefit of students, not employees. The school district appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA), which affirmed the compensation judge’s decision, agreeing that the exclusion did not bar the claim and that the injury occurred in the course of employment.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the teacher’s injury occurred “in the course of” employment under Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 1, because the injury happened at the workplace, within a reasonable time after the workday, and during an employment-related activity. The Court further held that the exclusion in section 176.021, subdivision 9, applies only to voluntary employer-sponsored recreational programs that are for the benefit of employees, not students. The Supreme Court affirmed the WCCA’s decision. View "Lindsay vs. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1)" on Justia Law

An employee who worked as a packaging operator began experiencing left shoulder pain, which she attributed to her work activities. After seeking medical treatment, including surgery, her employer and its workers’ compensation insurer initially accepted her claim as work-related but later denied it based on an independent medical examination. While the workers’ compensation claim was pending, the employee’s health insurer paid for her medical expenses as required by Minnesota law when compensability is disputed. The employee then filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking a determination that her injury was compensable and that her employer should cover her medical expenses. The health insurer was notified of its right to intervene in the proceedings but did not do so within the statutory deadline.A compensation judge found the employee’s injury was work-related and compensable, but concluded that the employee could not bring a direct claim for medical expenses already paid by her health insurer, reasoning that only medical providers, not insurers, could be the subject of such claims. The judge also ruled that the health insurer’s failure to intervene extinguished its right to reimbursement. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed, holding that the employee could bring a direct claim for the medical expenses paid by the health insurer and that the employer and its insurer must reimburse the health insurer, despite its failure to intervene.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that, consistent with its recent decision in Johnson v. Concrete Treatments, Inc., an employee may bring a direct claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act for medical expenses related to a compensable work injury, even if those expenses were paid by a health insurer before compensability was determined. However, the Court also held that the WCCA erred in reviving the health insurer’s independent intervenor interest, which was extinguished by its failure to timely intervene. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Brunner vs. Post Consumer Brands" on Justia Law

James Jurgensen sustained a work injury on July 29, 2021, while employed by Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. He hired attorney Joshua E. Borken, who agreed to a contingent fee of 20% of the first $130,000 of compensation and 20% of any excess amount, subject to approval. Minnesota Statutes § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), caps attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases at $26,000. The parties settled for $150,000, and Borken sought $30,000 in fees, including $4,000 in excess fees. The compensation judge approved $26,000 but denied the excess fees after applying the Irwin factors.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge’s decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the excess fees. The WCCA also concluded that automatic approval of unobjected-to excess fees is inconsistent with section 176.081, which provides a presumptive cap on attorney fees. The WCCA did not address the constitutional issue due to a lack of jurisdiction.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the 2024 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 176.081, which increases the cap on attorney fees, does not apply retroactively. The court also held that the WCCA did not err by declining to automatically approve the requested excess fee. Additionally, the court found that Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2022), does not violate the Contracts Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Finally, the court concluded that the WCCA did not err by affirming the compensation judge’s denial of excess attorney fees under the Irwin factors.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the WCCA, upholding the denial of the $4,000 in excess attorney fees. View "Jurgensen vs. Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc." on Justia Law

In September 2015, Bobby Lykins suffered severe physical and cognitive injuries from a work-related explosion. In 2017, Lykins, his employer Anderson Contracting, Inc., and its insurer SFM Mutual Insurance Co. agreed to a workers’ compensation settlement. An addendum to the settlement was agreed upon in 2018. Both agreements were approved by a compensation judge. In 2022, a conservator was appointed for Lykins, who then petitioned the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) to set aside the settlements, alleging they were invalid due to Lykins’ incapacity at the time of signing and fraud by omission.The WCCA found that the evidence raised significant questions about Lykins’ capacity when he signed the settlements and referred the matter to a compensation judge for further fact-finding. The WCCA instructed that if the compensation judge found Lykins appeared to be incapacitated at the time of the settlements, the matter should be referred to district court for a determination of incapacity.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified that the WCCA has the authority under Minnesota Statutes section 176.521, subdivision 3, to set aside an award if the settlement is invalid under section 176.521, subdivision 1(a). The Court affirmed the WCCA’s decision to refer the matter for fact-finding but vacated the part of the WCCA’s decision that required referral to district court. The Supreme Court held that the workers’ compensation courts have the authority to determine whether Lykins was incapacitated when he signed the settlements. The case was affirmed in part and vacated in part. View "Lykins vs. Anderson Contracting, Inc." on Justia Law

Rodney Dean Bjornson, the relator, suffered two injuries while employed by McNeilus Companies, Inc. He received treatment at Mayo Clinic, with expenses paid by United Healthcare Services. Bjornson's attorney, David C. Wulff, sought Roraff fees for recovering medical benefits. The compensation judge awarded Wulff $49,000 in Roraff fees, finding that United paid $327,257.37 in medical benefits based on itemized medical bills from Mayo Clinic attached to Bjornson's Employee’s Claim Petition.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reviewed the case and concluded that the itemized bills from Mayo Clinic were not in the appellate record. The WCCA reversed the compensation judge’s award of Roraff fees due to insufficient evidence regarding the bills and modified the Roraff fees to $500, as per the statutory formula for unascertainable benefits amounts.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Wulff presented sufficient evidence of the ascertainable dollar value of medical benefits. The court found that the WCCA did not assess whether the remaining evidence, including Wulff’s testimony and exhibits, was adequate to support the compensation judge’s conclusion. The Supreme Court reversed the WCCA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The WCCA was directed to clarify whether the itemized medical bills were actual bills or a summary document and to determine if the evidence in the record was adequate to support the compensation judge’s conclusion. View "Bjornson v. McNeilus Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

Dawn Simonson was employed by Douglas County as a histologist and suffered a lower back injury in 1996 while performing her job duties. The injury left her permanently and totally disabled, and she received workers' compensation benefits. When Simonson turned 67 in 2023, her employer stopped paying her permanent total disability (PTD) benefits based on a statutory retirement presumption. Simonson claimed she would have worked past age 67 and sought to rebut the presumption.A compensation judge initially found that Simonson had not rebutted the retirement presumption, applying factors from a previous case, Davidson v. Thermo King. The judge concluded that Simonson's intent to retire weighed in favor of the employer, while her financial need weighed in her favor, and other factors were neutral or irrelevant. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) reversed this decision, concluding that the proper standard of proof to rebut the presumption was a preponderance of the evidence and that Simonson had met this burden based on her financial need.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the WCCA's determination that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employee seeks to rebut the retirement presumption. However, the Supreme Court found that the WCCA erred in emphasizing financial need as the primary factor. Instead, the court held that the relevant question is whether the employee would have retired anyway, even if not disabled, considering various factors such as the availability of work, retirement arrangements, age, work history, and willingness to forgo social security benefits. The case was remanded to the compensation judge for further findings consistent with this opinion. View "Simonson v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

A minor, through his mother, filed a lawsuit against Best Academy after his teacher, Aaron Hjermstad, sexually assaulted him. Hjermstad had a history of sexual abuse allegations from his previous employment, which Best Academy did not uncover during their hiring process. The school did not obtain reference letters or contact references, which were part of their hiring protocol.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Best Academy, reasoning that hiring decisions are always protected by the discretionary-function exception to municipal tort liability under Minnesota Statutes section 466.03, subdivision 6. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, applying the same reasoning.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that a municipality’s hiring decision is not categorically a policy-level decision involving weighing competing economic, social, political, and financial considerations. The court emphasized that the discretionary-function exception should be interpreted narrowly and that municipalities bear the burden of proving that their conduct involved such considerations. The court found that Best Academy did not provide evidence that its decision not to investigate Hjermstad’s background was based on balancing policy considerations. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Minor Doe 601 v. Best Academy" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a social worker, Janine Tea, who claimed to have developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to her exposure to the details of a murder committed by one of her clients. The county initially provided workers’ compensation benefits to Tea but discontinued those benefits after a licensed psychiatrist concluded she did not have PTSD. Tea objected to the discontinuance of her benefits and underwent an independent psychological evaluation in which she was diagnosed with PTSD. The compensation judge determined that Tea has compensable PTSD.The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed the compensation judge's decision. The county appealed, arguing that Tea did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the WCCA's decision. The court held that the WCCA’s affirmance of the compensation judge’s finding that Tea has compensable PTSD is not manifestly contrary to the evidence. The court also held that the WCCA did not err in refusing to use the DSM to re-evaluate the compensation judge’s factual finding that Tea has PTSD. The court clarified that compensation judges may review the DSM criteria when considering the persuasiveness of expert reports, but judges may not use those criteria to make their own diagnosis of a claimant’s condition. View "Tea vs. Ramsey County" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Minnesota, clerical and technical employees of the Anoka County Sheriff's Office, represented by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. (the Union), submitted a petition to the Bureau of Mediation Services (the Bureau) to determine an appropriate collective bargaining unit. The County opposed the unit, proposing a broader, county-wide unit. The Bureau found the County's unit to be the more appropriate choice. The Union appealed this decision, arguing that the Bureau had made numerous errors of law.The Supreme Court held that the Bureau did not improperly compare the Union's proposed unit to that of the County's. The Court determined that under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA), overfragmentation is one of the "other relevant factors" that the Bureau is allowed to consider when analyzing statutory factors for a unit determination. However, the Court found that the Bureau gave priority and effectively controlling weight to its four-unit preference and the related overfragmentation concerns over the specific factors listed in PELRA. This was deemed to be an error of law.Consequently, the Court reversed the decision of the Bureau and remanded for further proceedings, instructing that a bargaining unit determination must now be made by the Bureau giving appropriate weight and consideration to the statutory factors in PELRA. View "Anoka County, Minnesota vs. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc." on Justia Law