Shire v. Rosemount, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. A15–0856.,A15–0856.
• Parties: Ali M. SHIRE, Respondent, v. ROSEMOUNT, INC., Self–Insured/ Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown Surgery Center, and Minnesota Department of Human Services/BRS, Intervenors.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

875 N.W.2d 289

Ali M. SHIRE, Respondent,
v.
ROSEMOUNT, INC., Self–Insured/ Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators,
and
Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown Surgery Center, and Minnesota Department of Human Services/BRS, Intervenors.

No. A15–0856.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 17, 2016.

Michael G. Schultz, Sommerer & Schultz, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Richard A. Riemer, Erstad & Riemer, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for relators.

OPINION

WRIGHT, Justice.

This appeal requires us to interpret an exception to the general rule that an employee injured in the course of employment is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Specifically, an employer is not liable for injuries incurred by an employee while participating in an employer-sponsored "voluntary recreational program[ ]," Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9 (2014). The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) concluded that an employee-recognition event sponsored by relator was not "voluntary" because attendance at the event was the only option by which respondent could avoid a loss of pay or benefits. We conclude that an employer-sponsored recreational program is not "voluntary" when it takes place during work hours and employees must either attend the event or use limited vacation time in order to get paid. We further conclude that individual activities that take place during a voluntary recreational program do not constitute separate "programs." We, therefore, affirm.

I.

Respondent Ali Shire worked the Friday–through–Sunday weekend shift as a full-time, permanent employee in the shipping department of relator Rosemount, Inc. During the last three hours of a weekend shift in October 2012, Rosemount sponsored its annual employee-recognition event, which was held specifically for the weekend-shift employees of the shipping department. Rosemount's online employee handbook states that "recognition events are voluntary in purpose and all employees have the choice to decide to participate.... If an invitation or sign-up sheet is utilized, it should very clearly state the event is voluntary." The handbook does not provide any information about an employee's pay or the use of vacation or unpaid leave during a recognition event.

The compensation judge found, and it is undisputed on appeal, that the weekend-shift employees had three options with respect to the October 2012 recognition event: attend the recognition event and receive their usual wage for the last three hours of the shift, request to use their accrued paid vacation time, or request to take unpaid leave.¹ Rosemount's policy is

875 N.W.2d 291

to limit the total number of employees in a department who are permitted to take vacation or unpaid leave at the same time to no more than 10 percent.

The employee-recognition event consisted of dinner followed by bowling, then a game of laser tag. Shire injured his right ankle while playing laser tag. As a result of his injury, Shire was temporarily and totally disabled from performing his normal job duties for more than one year. He also sustained a 3.98 percent permanent partial disability of the whole body. Shire filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits. Rosemount denied liability, asserting that Shire's injury is excluded from coverage under Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9. Subdivision 9 exempts injuries incurred during "voluntary recreational programs" from workers' compensation coverage. Id.

Rosemount advanced two arguments before the compensation judge. First, Rosemount argued that the employee-recognition event was a "voluntary recreational program" because Rosemount provided its employees with alternatives to attendance at the event—the options of requesting to use vacation time or requesting to take unpaid leave. Second, even if the employee-recognition event was not "voluntary," Rosemount argued that Shire's injury falls within the voluntary-recreational-program exception because he was injured while participating in a voluntary game at the employee-recognition event.

In response to Rosemount's first argument, Shire countered that the event was not "voluntary" because it occurred during his shift and he was required to attend in order to obtain his wage without sacrificing his limited vacation time. Shire also argued that he could not take vacation or unpaid leave without his supervisor's prior approval. In response to Rosemount's second argument, Shire contended that the statute addresses the voluntary nature of the employee-recognition program, not the voluntary nature of the laser-tag game.

The compensation judge held that the relevant question is whether the "program" was voluntary, not whether the activities within the program were voluntary. The employee-recognition event was not a "voluntary" program, the compensation judge concluded, because without the option of remaining at work for the last three hours of his shift, Shire's only alternatives were to sacrifice either his pay or his limited vacation time. The WCCA affirmed. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., 2015 WL 2327967 (Minn. WCCA Apr. 22, 2015). Rosemount now seeks review by this court.

II.

Generally, an employee whose injury "aris[es] out of and in the course of employment" is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Minn.Stat. § 176.021, subd. 1 (2014). The Legislature created an exception, however, for injuries incurred while participating in employer-sponsored "voluntary recreational programs." Id., subd. 9. The exception provides:

Injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer, including health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics, do not arise out of and in the course of the employment even though the employer pays some or all of the cost of the program. This exclusion does not apply in the event that the injured employee was ordered

875 N.W.2d 292

or assigned by the employer to participate in the program.

Id. (emphasis added).

At issue here is the meaning of the phrase "voluntary recreational program" in subdivision 9, a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821, 825–26 (Minn.2013). The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature. Ekdahl v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 213, 851 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Minn.2014). We interpret words employed in a statute according to their plain meaning. Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn.2012). To determine the plain meaning of a word, we often consider dictionary definitions. See Troyer v. Vertlu Mgmt. Co./Kok & Lundberg Funeral Homes, 806 N.W.2d 17, 24 (Minn.2011).

We also interpret statutes so as to give effect to each word and phrase. Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co., 869 N.W.2d 31, 33 (Minn.2015) (stating that statutes should be interpreted such that "no word, phrase, or sentence [is] superfluous, void, or insignificant") (quoting Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn.2000) ); accord Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2014). When a word or phrase has a plain meaning, we presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and engage in no further statutory construction. State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280, 284–85 (Minn.2015) ; see also Allan, 869 N.W.2d at 33 ("When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it is assumed to manifest legislative intent and must be given effect.") (quoting Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn.2001) ).

A.

Rosemount's principal argument is that the employee-recognition event was "voluntary" because employees had the option of either requesting to use vacation time or requesting to take unpaid leave. Shire contends that he was implicitly compelled to attend the event because attendance was the only option by which he could get paid without using his limited vacation time.

1.

Because the workers' compensation statute does not define the word "voluntary," we begin our plain-meaning analysis with dictionary definitions. According to these definitions, an option is "voluntary" when it is "[d]one or undertaken of one's own free will" or "done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1941–42 (5th ed.2011); see also Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 2564 (3d ed.2002) (defining "voluntary" as "proceeding from the will: produced in or by an act of choice"; "performed, made, or given of one's own free will"; or "acting of oneself: not constrained, impelled, or influenced by another").

Contrary to these definitions, employees were "constrained" by the fact that attendance at the employee-recognition event was the only means by which they could obtain their wages without expending limited vacation time. To hold that a program is "voluntary" under these circumstances would ignore the financial consequences that employees would have faced for failing to attend: either the loss of pay or the depletion of limited vacation time.

Moreover, concluding that a program is "voluntary" under these facts would violate the canon against surplusage, which requires us to give effect to each word and phrase of a statute. Allan, 869 N.W.2d at 33. Rosemount argues that a program

...