Hanson v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia, No. A03-1061 (MN 6/8/2004)
| Decision Date | 08 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A03-1061.,A03-1061. |
| Parties | Shelley Hanson, Appellant, v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia, d/b/a Minnesota Sinfonia, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 02-001442.
Jill Clark, Jill Clark, P.A., (for appellant)
Frederick E. Finch, Matthew J. Franken, Bassford Remele, P.A., (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Shelley Hanson challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents on her various claims, arguing that (1) she was an "employee" for the purpose of disability discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; (2) her federal action is not res judicata for certain portions of her state action; (3) she can maintain an action for business disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; (4) her defamation claim was proper; (5) her invasion of privacy claim was proper; (6) her claim for interference with prospective business relationships was proper; (7) her breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims were not barred by collateral estoppel; (8) her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was proper; (9) the district court erred in considering respondents' second summary judgment motion and not considering her motion for reconsideration; and (10) she should be allowed to seek punitive damages. We affirm.
Appellant Shelley Hanson plays the clarinet professionally. Respondent Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia is a non-profit corporation that hires musicians to perform concerts. Respondent Jay Fishman is a co-founder of the Sinfonia and serves as its executive director, artistic director, and conductor. Appellant and other Sinfonia performers contract to play with the Sinfonia as their individual schedules allow, are paid on a per activity basis, and otherwise perform and work in the community. Appellant, the other Sinfonia performers, and Fishman are all members of the American Federation of Musicians. However, the union does not contract on their behalf with the Sinfonia.
The Sinfonia held a rehearsal on March 16, 1999. Fishman arrived early to set up the lighting, including lights supported by tripod legs with poles about six feet tall. Fishman placed some of these lights on a utility table that was located near the back of the stage. At the beginning of rehearsal, when Fishman went back to adjust the lights, one fell from the table and hit appellant, who was sitting with her back to the lights. Appellant told Fishman that she thought she suffered a concussion, but she claims that Fishman demanded that she finish the rehearsal anyway.
Appellant participated in a few Sinfonia concerts after the incident, but claims that the effects of the accident impaired her judgment and her performing ability. Thereafter, appellant took a medical leave for the month of April and found replacements for her part in the concerts in May. Appellant claims she only told three people about her injuries, two were close friends who also played in the Sinfonia, one of whom was appellant's union representative, and the third was Mary Bahr, the Sinfonia personnel manager who helped find replacements and handled medical leave requests.
During appellant's leave, appellant was informed that Fishman had replaced her. When appellant inquired, she was informed that her position was terminated and that a letter from Fishman was in the mail. The letter, dated May 19, 1999, stated the following:
I am sorry to hear that your recovery is taking so long. When I asked Mary Bahr to hire you for the summer dates, I had anticipated that you would be completely well by that time. I understand that is not the case.
Because of this, I feel very uncomfortable offering you work, until we are certain that you are 100%. Therefore, we must regretfully rescind our offer of work for the summer. Please remove all Sinfonia bookings from your calendar. When you are well, please call me, and we will talk.
After receiving the letter, appellant contacted her union representative. The union president instructed all board members and Fishman to keep the matter confidential. At a Sinfonia rehearsal on June 9, 1999, that was also attended by several individuals who hire performers for various entities and events, Fishman read his May 19 letter aloud because he claimed that there were rumors that he had "fired" appellant and he wished to clarify the situation. Appellant claims Fishman read the letter maliciously to discourage others from hiring her by creating the impression that she was unable to perform. She further claims that this public reading of the letter caused her extreme emotional distress.
Appellant did not contact Fishman to inquire about her job when she was able to resume playing. Instead, she filed a grievance with the Twin Cities Musicians' Union Local #30-73 of the American Federation of Musicians, claiming that her contract had been improperly terminated. The local union board of directors reviewed appellant's grievance letter and, with the consent of all parties, began an arbitration procedure that included an evidentiary hearing before the local union board. Although the local board initially found the termination violated three union bylaws and ruled in appellant's favor, after a series of appeals and reviews, the final decision of the International Executive Board of the American Federation of Musicians was that Fishman's rescission letter and appellant's "termination" complied with union bylaws.
In addition to the proceeding within the union, appellant filed a lawsuit against Fishman and Sinfonia in federal court, alleging that Fishman and Sinfonia engaged in disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and asserting other state claims. The U.S. District Court for Minnesota determined that appellant was not an employee of Sinfonia, but rather an independent contractor, it granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the ADA and MHRA claims; and it dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice. Hanson v. Friends of Minn. Sinfonia, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1009-10 (D. Minn. 2001), aff'd, 322 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 469 (2003).
After appellant's claims were dismissed by the federal district court, appellant commenced this state court action asserting claims for disability discrimination under the MHRA, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, interference with prospective business relations, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. No claim has been made for physical injuries caused by the fallen light. In October 2002, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and appellant moved for leave to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages. The district court granted summary judgment against appellant on her claims for disability discrimination under the MHRA, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, and interference with prospective business relations. The district court denied summary judgment on appellant's claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The district court also denied appellant's request to amend her complaint to include punitive damages.
Respondents filed a motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on the breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Appellant moved to strike this motion, but the district court denied appellant's motion and granted summary judgment for respondents on those claims. Appellant then brought a motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment that disposed of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and submitted additional affidavits in support of the motion. The district court denied appellant's motion. This appeal was taken from the final judgment. Respondents argue that the affidavits submitted with appellant's motion to reconsider are not properly before us on appeal and moves to strike them.
On appeal from summary judgment, we ask 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). The standard of review is de novo. Id. 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 as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. "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). A genuine issue for trial must be established by substantial evidence. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69-70 (Minn. 1997).
The first issue is whether appellant has a valid claim for employment discrimination under the MHRA. Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subds. 1, 6, and 7 (2002).1 Appellant argues that she was an "employee" of Sinfonia and that the district court erred in holding that the decision of the federal district court was res judicata on this issue. This determination is critical to appellant's case because claims of employment discrimination under the MHRA can only be brought by an employee. See Farrington v. City of Richfield, 488 N.W.2d 13, 15 (Minn. App. 1992).
The doctrine of res judicata applies and bars a subsequent claim when (1) the earlier claim involved the same claim for relief; (2) the earlier claim involved the same pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial