Home > Appellate Courts > Court of Appeals > Court of Appeals Opinions >

Court of Appeals Published Opinions

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.

Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail.  All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately.  Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address.  Please go to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=156 for instructions how to register your e-mail address.

 

---

DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED MONDAY, MAY 13, 2013

 

A12-0709       Darrel Schmitz, Respondent, vs. United States Steel Corporation, Appellant.
                      St. Louis County District Court, Hon. Shaun R. Floerke.
            1.   Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1 (2012), of the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act provides a cause of action for threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits that is independent of claims for retaliatory discharge and intentional obstruction of benefits.           
            2.   A claim for threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1, requires the plaintiff to show that a person, with knowledge that the plaintiff may have suffered a workplace injury, attempted to dissuade the plaintiff from seeking workers' compensation benefits through one or more communications that created a reasonable apprehension of discharge and caused the plaintiff to delay or cease seeking benefits.
            3.   Under basic agency principles, an employer is vicariously liable for the actions of a supervisor who threatens to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1.
            4.   A claim alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1, seeking only money damages, sounds in tort and is therefore an action at law with an attendant right to a jury trial under the Minnesota Constitution.
            5.   A party is not entitled to a jury trial on a refusal-to-offer-continued-employment claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 2 (2012).
            Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  Judge Natalie E. Hudson.