Pauly v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways, No. A04-812 (MN 12/14/2004)
| Decision Date | 14 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A04-812.,A04-812. |
| Parties | James A. Pauly, Appellant, v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. PI 02-014186.
Fredric A. Bremseth, Thomas F. Handorff, Bremseth Law Firm, P.C., (for appellant).
Megan K. Ricke, Rodney A. Honkanen, JoAnn C. Toth, Spence, Ricke, Sweeney & Gernes, P.A., (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Halbrooks, Judge, and Huspeni, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant challenges the summary judgment granted to respondent on appellant's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) claims on the grounds that the district court erred by concluding that (1) he was not fraudulently induced into signing a FELA release-of-claims form, (2) his FELA claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and (3) he could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the MHRA because he was not qualified for the position from which he was discharged. We affirm.
Appellant James A. Pauly began to work for the Northern Pacific Railroad, predecessor to respondent Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), in 1969. Pauly alleges that during his years with BNSF, he was exposed to a variety of loud noises. In 1985, Pauly noticed that he was having difficulty hearing some voices. As a result, he had his hearing checked, found that he had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, and purchased hearing aids.
In 1993, Pauly went to see Ronald D. Hanson, M.D., an ear, nose, and throat specialist in St. Cloud. After examining Pauly, Dr. Hanson wrote a letter which was copied to Pauly, stating that "[p]rior to attributing [Pauly's hearing difficulties] to noise-induced hearing loss alone, it would be important to rule out an acoustic neuroma which can present with this audiologic pattern." Subsequent testing ruled out an acoustic neuroma as the cause of Pauly's hearing loss. Pauly was informed of these results in a letter from Dr. Hanson, dated November 29, 1993. Following this assessment, BNSF agreed to pay up to $750 of the cost of a hearing-aid evaluation and possible hearing aids. Pauly was fitted with hearing aids on April 4, 1994, and has been dependent on them since.
In May 1996, Pauly submitted a claim to BNSF for payment for hearing-aid repair. The claim was declined. Pauly then requested a report form to file a claim for hearing loss with BNSF. In October 1996, William H. Renney, BNSF general claims manager, sent Pauly a personal-injury report, the requested claim form, and a hearing-impairment questionnaire. Portions of the first two forms were filled out by Renney. Additionally, on the claim-report form, Renney attached a Post-It note to the section asking for the circumstances of the injury, stating, "In here write in — during RR career, exposed to noise incurred hearing loss both ears." The parties dispute the reason for this. According to BNSF, Pauly requested assistance in filling out the forms, and Renney was simply obliging by inserting information disclosed to him by Pauly. Pauly, on the other hand, suggests that Renney provided this information of his own accord to indicate how Pauly should respond to various questions.
On December 4, 1996, Pauly filed a hearing-loss claim with BNSF for hearing loss in both ears caused by railroad noise. On the hearing-impairment questionnaire, Pauly indicated that he had been told by an audiologist in 1994 that he may have had a hearing problem that was "related to [his] work with the railroad."
Renney responded to this claim on December 16, stating, in part:
We have gone through all the documentation. . . . The type of loss you have is not loss generally associated with exposure to industrial noise, but rather loss due to aging and genetics, i.e., hearing loss a person is born with. As such, we do not accept responsibility for much of your loss. I am making an offer that is a bit higher than the average hearing loss claim settlement we are making with individuals.
Enclosed please find a Release of Claims form. This is in the amount of $5,000.00. This is the maximum we are willing to pay on your hearing loss claim.
On January 10, 1997, Pauly wrote Renney a letter, contending that two issues, payment for a "BNSF induced doctor's appointment" and for Pauly's hearing-aid repair, had not been addressed. In response, on January 15, Renney sent Pauly a new release-of-claims form and increased the settlement offer to $6,000. On April 11, Renney sent Pauly a follow-up letter stating that Pauly's case would be "closed" if the release was not returned within 30 days. Pauly signed the release on April 23.
This release provides in part:
1. In consideration of $6,000.00, I, James A. Pauly, release and forever discharge [BNSF] from all claims, suits, demands, actions, damages, costs and expenses of any kind, known or unknown, which I have by reason of any occupational hearing loss, hearing impairment, tinnitus, or hearing disorders of any type, including any increased risk of further hearing disorder.
2. I understand that the injuries and illnesses listed in paragraph (1) of this Release are or may be permanent. I further understand that these injuries or illnesses may progress and that recovery therefrom is uncertain and indefinite. It is my intention to release Releasees from any and all future consequences of said injuries or illnesses.
. . . .
6. I understand this Release is the complete agreement between Releasees and me. I make this Release without reliance upon any statement or representation by Releasees or its employees, except such representations as are set forth in this Release.
7. I understand and agree that this Release is intended as a final settlement of all claims, known or unknown, involving the illnesses or injuries listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
. . . .
9. I understand that signing this Release involves significant legal implications. I acknowledge that before signing this document I have read and understood it, or that I have obtained the advice of my attorney.
Pauly met with an attorney, David Meyer, before signing this release. Meyer has significant experience with FELA cases, including those involving hearing loss. Pauly contends, however, that Meyer "did not answer any of [Pauly's] questions." According to Pauly, he "spoke with Mr. Meyer on one occasion, did not retain Mr. Meyer or his firm, and there was no correspondence between [Pauly] and Mr. Meyer."
On November 8, 2000, BNSF posted a job bulletin advertising a "mechanical specialist" position—essentially a clerking job. Under qualifications, the job bulletin noted that applicants needed to be "proficient typist[s]." BNSF Labor Relations and Manpower Training Manager, George McCoy submitted an affidavit stating that proficient typist is a term of art for clerk postings indicating that the job "requir[es] typing skills of 35-40 words per minute." At his deposition, Pauly stated that he saw the posting, but did not know what "proficient" meant and that he did not have any idea how fast he could type.
Pauly applied for the position on November 17. Due to seniority, Pauly was awarded the position on December 5.1 The next day, Pauly was given a typing test, which he failed, typing only ten words per minute. As a result, Pauly was disqualified from the job a few days later and returned to a stockman position.
BNSF maintains that Pauly was given the typing test because, during his probationary period, it was discovered that Pauly was an extremely slow typist. But Pauly argues that he was required to take the test only after his supervisor became upset that Pauly had missed an incoming phone call because he did not hear the phone ring.2 Pauly asserts that he had performed similar clerking duties in a former position for BNSF, but had never been tested for typing skills or been disqualified based on those skills.
Pauly subsequently filed complaints with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC). Both the MDHR and the EEOC dismissed Pauly's claims. On July 26, 2002, Pauly filed suit against BNSF.3 The district court entered summary judgment for BNSF on March 23, 2004. This appeal follows.
Summary judgment is properly granted if 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."4 Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. On appeal from a summary judgment, this court determines whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred as a matter of law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was granted. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993).
Pauly first argues that the release of claims that he signed is invalid because it was induced by fraud. The validity of releases under FELA "raises a federal question to be determined by federal rather than state law." Dice v. Akron, Canton, & Youngstown R.R. Co., 342 U.S. 359, 361, 72 S. Ct. 312, 314 (1952). FELA releases may be invalidated on the ground of fraud in the inducement. Counts v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 952 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1991). "[A] release of rights under [FELA] is void when the employee is induced to sign it by the deliberately false and material statements of the railroad's authorized representatives made to deceive the employee as to the contents of the release." Dice, 342 U.S at 362, 72 S. Ct. at 314-15 (emphasis added).5 As recently discussed by the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial