Peterson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | A14-0467,A13-2378 |
| Parties | Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Respondent, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Appellant. |
| 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This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 (2012).
Affirmed
Ramsey County District Court
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Jackson Evans, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Joseph G. Schmitt, Peter Gray, Lisa M. Schmid, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Carla Gunnin (pro hac vice), Jackson Lewis P.C., Atlanta, Georgia (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In these consolidated appeals arising from enforcement actions asserted by respondent, appellant argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue temporary and permanent injunctions, and that it erred by entering a temporary injunction, denying appellant's motion to amend its answer, and granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Appellant United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) is a multi-national package-delivery company that operates a network of distribution and retail establishments, including distribution facilities in Minneapolis and Maple Grove. At both of those facilities, UPS employees load and unload tractor-trailers and package delivery trucks; some of those vehicles enter and exit the buildings through large doors, while others are serviced via exterior loading docks with overhead doors. In spite of efforts to minimize the amount of outdoor air entering the buildings, it can be difficult to maintain comfortable indoor working temperatures during the winter.
Prior to the fall of 2009, thermostats in these facilities were typically set at 50 degrees Fahrenheit during the winter months. In September 2009, UPS required that thermostats in operations areas be set to 45 degrees during the winter heating season in order to reduce costs and save energy. As temperatures fell with the arrival of winter, many employees found this temperature to be less comfortable and added layers of long underwear, sweatshirts, hats and gloves to their working attire. On December 10, 2009,an inspector from the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MnOSHA) went to the Maple Grove facility in response to a complaint that temperatures in the operations area were below freezing. He found the thermostat set at 45 degrees, and his measurements showed that temperatures in the operations area ranged from 48 to 55 degrees. Outdoor temperatures in Maple Grove varied from seven degrees above zero to seven degrees below zero that day. On December 28, an inspector measured indoor temperatures at the Minneapolis facility ranging from 54 to 62 degrees, while outdoor temperatures ranged from a high of 25 degrees to a low of 13 degrees.
In January 2010, based on data from the December 2009 inspections, MnOSHA issued violation citations for both facilities asserting violations of Minn. R. 5205.0110, subp. 3, which requires employers to maintain a minimum temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit in any "indoor workrooms" where "work of a strenuous nature is performed, unless prohibited by process requirements." The rules do not define "indoor workrooms." Abatement of the violations was stayed when UPS timely contested the citations, and the matter was heard by an administrative-law judge (ALJ). Arguments presented to the ALJ focused on whether the UPS facilities should be treated as indoor workrooms under Minn. R. 5205.0110, or as garages under Minn. R. 5205.0200. The rule governing garages imposes ventilation requirements focused on maintaining air quality but does not impose a minimum-temperature requirement.
The ALJ reversed the violation citations, concluding that the UPS facilities fell within the garage standard. The commissioner appealed to the MnOSHA board, whichheard the matter in November 2012. The MnOSHA board reversed the ALJ and upheld the citations, concluding that both the garage standard and the indoor-workroom standard apply. UPS timely filed a certiorari appeal of the MnOSHA board's decision but failed to properly serve the other parties. We discharged the writ and dismissed the appeal due to defective service and the supreme court denied review.
On three occasions in early 2013, a MnOSHA inspector attempted to conduct follow-up inspections at the Minneapolis and Maple Grove facilities. UPS personnel refused to allow the inspections, even after a police officer reviewed the inspection order and advised a UPS manager to permit the inspection. MnOSHA ultimately obtained a warrant from the Hennepin County District Court. Finally, on March 7, armed with the warrant and accompanied by two Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies, the inspector went to the Minneapolis facility and was able to complete an inspection. Temperature readings ranged from 48 to 63 degrees, with 23 out of 27 readings falling below 60 degrees. The outside temperature that day ranged from 11 degrees to 21 degrees. In June, MnOSHA issued a failure-to-abate citation and a citation for failure to submit a certification showing how the violation was corrected as required by Minn. R. 5210.0532, subp. 2.1
In August 2013, the commissioner sued UPS in Ramsey County District Court to enforce the decision of the MnOSHA board affirming the 2010 violation citations. In his complaint, the commissioner asked the district court to "order [UPS] to set thetemperature to sixty degrees in its distribution centers when the outside temperature is below sixty degrees" and issue a permanent injunction to the same effect. A flurry of filings followed: On August 20, UPS filed its answer, admitting that the MnOSHA board's decision was a "final order" and that UPS did not change thermostat settings after that decision. On September 6, the commissioner moved for summary judgment, proposing an order "requiring that [UPS] set the thermostat to 60 degrees in all of its Minnesota distribution centers whenever the outdoor temperature is below sixty degrees." (Emphasis added.) On October 7, UPS moved for leave to amend its answer by adding affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. On October 21, the commissioner moved for a temporary injunction requiring UPS to "set the temperature setting to 60 degrees in all of its Minnesota distribution centers when the outdoor temperature is below sixty degrees."
The parties appeared before the district court in November 2013. In December, the district court granted the commissioner's motion for a temporary injunction, ordering UPS "to set the temperature setting to sixty (60) degrees in each of its Minnesota distribution centers when the outdoor temperature is less than sixty degrees." (Emphasis added.) UPS requested clarification of the scope of the temporary injunction, noting that the MnOSHA board's decision pertained to the Maple Grove and Minneapolis facilities for which citations had been issued and requesting that the order be amended to apply to those facilities only. While that request was pending, UPS filed a notice of appeal to this court. That appeal was designated as case A13-2378, which is the parent file in thisappeal. On January 8, 2014, the district court declined to modify the temporary injunction, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to do so because UPS had appealed.
In February 2014, the district court issued a second order to address the outstanding motions. The second order denied UPS's motion for leave to amend its answer, granted the commissioner's motion for summary judgment and permanently ordered UPS to set thermostats at 60 degrees when the outside temperature falls below 60 degrees. UPS appealed the second order. The second appeal is case number A14-0467, the consolidated file in this appeal.
The commissioner moved to dismiss appeal A13-2378, arguing that the temporary injunction was mooted by the district court's imposition of the permanent injunction. We denied the motion, concluding that whether the temporary injunction is moot depends on the outcome of the appeal of the permanent injunction. In the same order, we granted a motion by UPS to consolidate the two cases and struck A13-2378 from the oral argument calendar. Consolidated oral argument occurred in July of this year. We now consider the consolidated appeal.
We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend pleadings for abuse of discretion. Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd., 664 N.W.2d 291, 295 (Minn. 2003). "Whether the district court has abused its discretion in ruling on a motion to amend may turn on whether it was correct in an underlying legal ruling." Doe v. F.P., 667 N.W.2d 493, 500-01 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003). In other words, "[a] districtcourt abuses its discretion when it bases its conclusions on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable law." Fannie Mae v. Heather Apartments Ltd. P'ship, 811 N.W.2d 596, 599 (Minn. 2012). Leave to amend should be freely given if the opposing party would not be prejudiced. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). But even if amendment would not prejudice the opposing party, a district court may properly deny amendment if it would be futile. Bridgewater Tel. Co. v. City of Monticello, 765 N.W.2d 905, 915 (Minn. App. 2009).
In this instance, our review is effectively de novo because the district court based its denial decision on two legal conclusions that, if correct, would make amendment futile. First, the district court concluded that UPS's amended claim would amount to an appeal of the decision of the MnOSHA board, and that it lacked subject-matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial