Casanova v. Tri-Cnty. Cmty. Corr.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | A19-1996 |
| Parties | Melissa Casanova, Appellant, v. Tri-County Community Corrections, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Polk County District Court
Darren M. Sharp, Lauren A. D'Cruz, Schaefer Halleen, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Margaret A. Skelton, Frank E. Langan, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Melissa Casanova appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and her claim for tortious interferencewith contract against respondent Tri-County Community Corrections. Because no genuine issues of material fact exist and because the district court did not err in its application of the law, we affirm.
Respondent Tri-County Community Corrections (TCCC) is a government entity formed by Norman, Polk, and Red Lake counties to provide correctional services. TCCC operates the Northwest Regional Corrections Center (the NWRCC), a jail facility located in Crookston, Minnesota. At all times relevant to this appeal, appellant's then-husband David Casanova (David) was employed by TCCC as the jail administrator at the NWRCC.
TurnKey Corrections is a company that provides commissary services to correctional facilities. TurnKey has a contract with TCCC to provide commissary items and vending services to inmates at the NWRCC. Appellant was a part-time, at-will employee of TurnKey. Her job duties included filling vending machines and commissary orders at the NWRCC. TCCC granted appellant a security clearance to access the NWRCC and fulfill her job duties for TurnKey. In November 2017, following events discussed in more detail below, TCCC revoked appellant's security clearance, making it impossible for her to fulfill her TurnKey duties at the NWRCC. Appellant was not an employee of TCCC at the time her security clearance was revoked or any other relevant time.1
Appellant sued TCCC, alleging claims of (1) marital discrimination in employment in violation of MHRA, (2) marital discrimination in public services in violation of the MHRA, (3) sex discrimination in employment in violation of the MHRA, (4) sex discrimination in public services in violation of the MHRA, (5) reprisal in violation of the MHRA, and (6) common-law tortious interference with contract. TCCC moved for summary judgment on all of appellant's claims, which the district court granted. Only the latter three claims are at issue in this appeal. The parties do not disagree on the fundamental facts underlying appellant's latter three claims, but they disagree over the legal implication of those facts. The evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to appellant, establishes the following:
In September 2017, appellant went to David's office at the NWRCC. David was not present. She looked at David's phone, which was on his desk, and saw that David had received a text message from a subordinate TCCC employee asking him for a kiss. When David returned to his office, appellant asked him about the message. David told appellant that the subordinate had accidentally sent the message to him. Appellant did not believe David. She attempted to leave David's office with his phone to show the message to David's boss, the executive director of TCCC. Appellant planned to show the message to David's boss because she believed that TCCC's policies prohibited David from having a romantic relationship with a subordinate. David told appellant that the executive director would not believe her because he had already told the executive director "a bunch of things about her." According to appellant, David blocked her from leaving his office with the phone, and smashed her fingers in his office door in the process. He also threatened to useto the "man down" button if she did not give him the phone back. Appellant took a picture of the text message with her own phone, and David eventually let her leave his office without the phone. Another TCCC employee heard the altercation in David's office and cleared inmates out of the adjacent hallway.
On the day of this incident, appellant called TCCC's executive director and left a voicemail message. Appellant called the executive director intending to inform him about the text message between David and his subordinate. Appellant does not remember exactly what she said in the voicemail, but testified at her deposition that she provided her name and indicated that she had "some concerning information" about David. The executive director received the message but did not call appellant back.2 Before appellant called the executive director, David had told the executive director that he and appellant had a confrontation over a phone in his office and that appellant might be calling him. David did not inform the executive director about the subordinate's text message at that time.
Between September 2017 and November 2017, appellant and David's relationship was "rocky." When they argued, David "regularly" threatened to revoke her NWRCC security clearance or have it revoked. On November 20, 2017, appellant sent her TurnKeysuperiors an email informing them that David had threatened to revoke her security clearance. She indicated in the email that she wanted to continue working for TurnKey.
On November 21, 2017, appellant and David got into another argument at their home. Appellant, still suspicious that David was having an affair with the subordinate, grabbed David's phone out of his pocket. David told appellant to give his phone back, but she would not. David pushed appellant onto a couch, held her down, and told her not to read his messages. David eventually let appellant go and the two agreed to read his messages together later in the day. Appellant then left the house and brought David's phone with her. Before she returned home, she began reading David's messages. The messages were being deleted as she read them. The messages that she read unambiguously demonstrated that David was having an affair with the subordinate.
Appellant returned home and argued with David. She called the subordinate, who answered but denied having a relationship with David. Appellant again threatened to tell TCCC's executive director about David's affair. A physical altercation ensued. According to appellant, David trapped her in their bedroom and threw a laptop. The laptop shattered into pieces, some of which hit her. Appellant escaped the room and David followed her into the kitchen. Appellant recalled that David picked up a knife while in the kitchen and then threatened to cut his hand and report that appellant had cut him. Appellant suffered bruises on her hands and face as a result of the incidents on that day.
That night, David reported his version of the November 21 events to TCCC's executive director. He told the executive director that he and his wife had a major dispute,that he had left the house, and that his wife had taken his phone. A few days later, appellant told David that she wanted a divorce.
On November 22, the next day, TCCC's executive director decided to revoke appellant's security clearance. The executive director felt that it was not appropriate for appellant to continue to work at the NWRCC for TurnKey because it would exacerbate existing tensions in the workplace to have David and appellant in the same building. That day, appellant learned from TurnKey that her security clearance for the NWRCC had been revoked.
In deciding to revoke appellant's security clearance, TCCC's executive director relied exclusively on information provided by David. He did not speak with appellant about either the September or November incidents, or conduct any other investigation. But he testified at his deposition that David never mentioned the idea of revoking appellant's security clearance.
TCCC's executive director reached out to TurnKey management to inform them of the decision to revoke appellant's security clearance. At his deposition, TCCC's executive director testified the reason that he revoked appellant's security clearance was "the relationship and resulting dysfunction within the home, which has the potential to infringe and impact the work environment." TCCC's executive director told TurnKey management that the decision to revoke appellant's security clearance was not based on performance and that he would not object to appellant working at another correctional facility for TurnKey. TurnKey offered appellant a position at another facility, but she declined the offer based on the hours and a longer commute.
On November 25, 2017, appellant sent an email to TCCC's executive director and TCCC's board of commissioners explaining her relationship with David, exposing David's affair with the subordinate, and telling her version of the recent incidents. She attached pictures of her bruising from the November incident and pictures of David's text messages with the subordinate. In response to appellant's email, TCCC's executive director placed David on paid administrative leave. TCCC paid for an independent, outside investigation into the allegation of employment misconduct against David. After interviewing appellant, TCCC's executive director, David, and the subordinate, the investigator concluded that TCCC's executive director alone decided to revoke appellant's security clearance, and that David was not involved in that decision. TCCC ultimately decided to terminate David's employment as jail administrator based on David's failure to disclose his relationship with the subordinate.
TCCC did not reinstate appellant's security clearance. TCCC's executive director testified at his deposition that, because the subordinate still worked at the NWRCC, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial