Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., No. A06-1693 (Minn. App. 7/24/2007)
| Decision Date | 24 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A06-1693.,A06-1693. |
| Parties | Judy Frieler, Appellant, v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 27-CV-05-011378.
Joni M. Thome, Frances E. Baillon, (for appellant)
Gregory J. Stenmoe, Steven W. Wilson, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), that a hostile work environment was created when her supervisor sexually harassed her on the job, and that respondent Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. (CMG) is liable for assault and battery as her employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior for her supervisor's alleged actions, appellant Judy Frieler appeals summary judgment granted in favor of CMG. The district court determined that Frieler failed to show a material fact dispute that: (1) CMG knew or should have known of the unwitnessed and unreported sexual assaults that she alleged or that CMG failed to respond appropriately to the allegations once they surfaced; (2) that the alleged assailant, Ed Janiak, was not her supervisor for the purpose of assigning liability vicariously to CMG for a hostile work environment; and (3) that sexual harassment was not a well-known, widespread, industry hazard for the purposes of Frieler's assault-and-battery claims. Because Frieler failed to show a material fact dispute about whether CMG knew or should have known about harassment, even if her work environment was considered hostile for the purpose of granting summary judgment, and because Frieler failed to establish that sexual harassment is a well-known hazard in her particular type of workplace, we affirm the district court's determination.
Judy Frieler began working in the bindery department of CMG as a part-time collation clerk in 1991. During the last two years of her employment, Frieler became interested in full-time work, and her manager, David Weber, encouraged her to apply for a full-time position. Weber told her to talk with Ed Janiak, the supervisor who was hiring for the full-time position. Frieler had known Janiak for many years, and although they worked in different departments, Frieler testified that she and Janiak would joke around, that they had a playful relationship, and that she had no concerns about working with Janiak at the time.
On February 23, 2005, soon after she spoke with Janiak about a full-time position, Frieler alleges that he physically and sexually assaulted her for the first of four times. He called her into a private room, locked the door, grabbed her in a bear hug, pressed his erect penis against her stomach area, and grabbed her buttocks. Frieler stated that Janiak kept telling her that she should get used to such treatment because he was going to be her boss. Frieler did not tell anyone about this incident.
On March 2, 2005, Janiak allegedly assaulted Frieler a second time in the same private room, having called her in to discuss job-related matters. This time he grabbed her waist, repeatedly tried to kiss her, and Frieler could feel his erect penis against her body. He also told her that she would have to learn "to take it" and "to handle him." Janiak released Frieler and before leaving the room told her not to tell anyone. Frieler testified that she was terrified, but believed that if she told anyone in management, she would not get the job that she wanted. She told her sister-in-law, her sister, her son, a friend, and her ex-husband about the assaults but did not tell anyone at CMG.
On March 7, 2005, Janiak allegedly assaulted Frieler a third time in a locked and secure room located in the warehouse area after he told Frieler that he needed to show her something for her new job. He grabbed her, groped her left breast, rubbed his penis against her stomach, and tried to kiss her as she struggled to get away. Frieler did not inform CMG of the incident.
On March 9, 2005, Janiak allegedly assaulted Frieler a fourth time in the Sales Room. Later that day, Frieler was offered, and she accepted, a full-time job. The next day, Frieler told coworker Debbie Tobako that she was being harassed by a guy at work. Later that day, she had lunch with Tobako and Vickie Streich—a group leader in the department where Frieler worked—and told them that Janiak had been assaulting Frieler ever since Frieler had applied for the full-time position.
That same day, Frieler met with Weber, her manager, and Angela Krob and Jackie Dahl, both of whom were in the human-resources department. Crying and shaking, she told them about the alleged multiple assaults. The company immediately began investigating, meeting with Frieler several times. Krob and Dahl gave Frieler the option of continuing to work, but Frieler chose to be placed on paid leave.
Krob and Dahl met with numerous coworkers to investigate the matter but discovered no evidence to substantiate Frieler's claims. On March 11, they met with Janiak and told him that Frieler had complained of sexual harassment. Janiak denied the allegations and quit his job on March 14, stating as a reason his serious health issues caused by job-related stress and a desire to spend more time with his family. Janiak's coworkers threw him a brief retirement party, and Weber told him he was sorry to see him leave the job. Frieler returned to her part-time job after two weeks' leave, and she testified that she was told by Krob and Dahl not to discuss the incident. Frieler worked for a few days, but felt uncomfortable when her coworkers accused her of making up the allegations. On the day she was to start her full-time position, she called in sick. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, requested further leave, and then sent CMG a letter through her attorney, stating that she would not be returning to work.
On appeal from summary judgment, this court "ask[s] two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) whether the [district] court[] erred in [its] application of the law." State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990).
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted.
Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted). No genuine issue for trial exists when "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a party "must do more than rest on mere averments," id. at 71, and must establish a genuine fact issue for trial with "sufficient evidence to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions," Schroeder v. St. Louis County, 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis omitted). Although Frieler argues that summary judgment should seldom be granted in employment-discrimination cases, including sexual-harassment claims, this notion was rejected in Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., in which the supreme court "express[ed] [its] disapproval of the court of appeals' sweeping statement that summary judgment is generally inappropriate in discrimination cases." 536 N.W.2d 319, 326 n.9 (Minn. 1995).
Alleging sexual harassment in violation of the MHRA, Frieler agues that CMG created a hostile work environment when Janiak sexually harassed her while she was attempting to perform her job duties, that CMG knew, or should have known, of Janiak's conduct, and that the intolerable working conditions were exacerbated by CMG's handling of the investigation and by coworkers' comments to her about the incident. The district court held that Frieler failed to establish a material fact dispute that CMG knew, or should have known, of the alleged assaults and then failed to take timely and appropriate corrective action. The district court also noted that Frieler failed to show that Janiak was her supervisor for the purpose of assigning vicarious liability to CMG for Janiak's actions. Frieler contends that she established a material fact dispute over whether CMG is vicariously liable for the hostile work environment created by Janiak. We disagree.
Under the MHRA, sexual harassment may consist of "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature . . . ." Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 43 (2006). To prevail on her claim of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment, Frieler must show that:
(1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on membership in a protected group; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition or privilege of her employment; and (5) the employer knew of or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action.
Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717, 725 (Minn. 2001). The sexual harassment must have been so severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of her employment and created an abusive work environment. Id. To successfully oppose summary judgment, Frieler must show a genuine fact issue on all the elements that would establish a prima facie case. Russ, 566 N.W.2d at 71.
Under federal law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial