St. Hilaire v. Minco Products, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 October 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.02-3636(RHK/AJB).,Civ.02-3636(RHK/AJB). |
| Citation | 288 F.Supp.2d 999 |
| Parties | Steven M. ST. HILAIRE, Plaintiff, v. MINCO PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Elizabeth A. Cloutier, Cloutier Law Offices, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff Steven M. St. Hilaire.
Joan M. Quade and Edward P. Sheu, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., Coon Rapids, MN, for Defendant Minco Products, Inc.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Steven M. St. Hilaire ("St. Hilaire") has sued Defendant Minco Products, Inc. ("Minco") for various forms of disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, negligence, wrongful discharge, and breach of contract. Defendant Minco asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that St. Hilaire cannot establish a prima facie case on any claim, his termination was for good cause, and he suffered no damages.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
St. Hilaire worked for Minco from 1984 until his termination in August 2000. (Compl.¶ 9.) Minco is a Minneapolis based manufacturing company which makes heaters, flex-circuits, and temperature sensors. (Id. ¶ 6; see Minco, "About Minco," available at http://www.minco.com/corpinfo.php); see also Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). St. Hilaire began his employment at Minco as a Technician 1, was promoted several times, and was a Technician 5 Supervisor when he was terminated. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 6.) As a supervisor, St. Hilaire worked around many people and his responsibilities included scheduling, training, discipline, and preparing performance evaluations. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 22; St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 14-15, 51-52, 154-56; Quade Aff. Ex. DD (job description).) His promotions came despite reprimands for excessive absences, tardiness, obscene language, and rule violations. (Quade Aff. Ex. AA; St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 266-75.)
St. Hilaire suffers from Tourette's Syndrome, which causes him to involuntarily cross his eyes, make noises, wiggle fingers, jerk his head, and talk loudly. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 3.) He informed his supervisors at Minco about his condition and handed out information on Tourette's Syndrome. (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 179.) Minco responded by holding a meeting to educate his co-workers about Tourette's. (Id.) Some co-workers, however, accused him of lying, swore at him, and called him names. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶¶ 3-5.) In 1997, St. Hilaire filed a discrimination and harassment charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, but the Department dismissed the charge after finding no probable cause. (Id. ¶ 7; Cloutier Aff. Ex. 26.) Despite the Department's dismissal, Minco reprimanded those alleged to have harassed St. Hilaire. (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 119, 180-81.)
In the late 1990s, St. Hilaire was involved in two car accidents. In July 1997, he fractured his ankle and foot and took a leave of absence for foot surgery from July 17, 1997 to August 22, 1997. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 9.) In May 1999, he severely injured his neck, back, and exacerbated his Tourette's Syndrome. (Id. ¶ 13.) His doctors determined that he was totally disabled and he took a leave of absence from May 17, 1999 to August 22, 1999. (Id.) From August 23, 1999 to December 10, 1999, his doctors determined that he was partially disabled and placed him on heavy lifting restrictions and limited the amount of time St. Hilaire could stand and walk. (Id. ¶ 14.) Minco made accommodations and abided by these restrictions, although St. Hilaire felt that Minco went "overboard" by making him record how long he was out of his chair. (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 237-40.) Due to subsequent medical treatment and back surgery, however, his doctors again declared him totally disabled and unable to work from December 11, 1999 through August 2000. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 15.) He was also found to be totally disabled and unable to work by the Social Security Administration from the May 17, 1999 accident through August 2000. (Cloutier Aff. Ex. 25.) As a result, he was entitled to Social Security disability insurance benefits. (Id.) From May 1999, the month of the first accident, to his termination in August 2000, a period of sixteen months, St. Hilaire only worked sporadically.2 (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 54-56.)
St. Hilaire believed his leave from Minco came under the Family and Medical Leave Act.3 (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶¶ 13, 15; St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 162.) In January 2000, Minco sent St. Hilaire a letter stating that it had received his request to remain off work for a minimum of six months after his February 2000 back surgery. He was advised that Minco could not keep his supervisor position available, but if he returned by August 18, 2000 he could work as an assembler. (Quade Aff. Ex. M.) The letter stated:
Dear Mr. St. Hilaire:
Thank you for keeping us informed concerning your medical leave of absence. We have received from you the Report of Workability that states that you must remain off work. You are scheduled for surgery on February 17, 2000. When you called this information in to Betty Bauer in ADS, you informed her that you applied for Social Security Disability Benefits and that you would be off work for a minimum of six months after your surgery.
We are unable to keep your group leader position available. That position, if left unfilled, will cause the department to be unable to function properly since certain group leader functions, like training and paperwork, are necessary for the group to operate efficiently. However, we will keep you on the payroll on an unpaid medical leave of absence until August 18, 2000 and return you to an assembler position with the group, at the same rate of pay you had been receiving, if you return within that time frame.
Please keep us informed of any changes in your medical leave status.
Yours very truly,
Mary Ann Broos
(Cloutier Aff. Ex. 15.) The letter was undated, but "Sent 1-11-2000" was written under the author's name. (Id.; Broos Aff. ¶ 3.) Ms. Broos says she sent the letter (Broos Aff. ¶ 3), but St. Hilaire claims that he never received it.4 St. Hilaire did not return to work by August 18, 2000.
On August 28, 2000, St. Hilaire received a certified letter from Minco dated August 22, 2000 notifying him that he had been terminated for not returning to work on August 18, 2000. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 18; Cloutier Aff. Ex. 14.) The termination letter stated:
Dear Mr. St. Hilaire,
It is our understanding that you were not able to return to work following the expiration of your most recent leave of absence on August 18, 2000. As you will recall, this six-month leave of absence was granted following your surgery and after your family and medical leave of absence expired. Therefore we regret to inform you that your employment with MINCO Products, Inc. was terminated effective August 21, 2000. In the event that you are able to work at some point in the future, you are invited to apply for any vacancies with our company at that time.
We wish you the best on your recovery. Information on your 401K and ESOP benefits will follow under separate cover.
Yours truly,
Mary Ann Broos
(Cloutier Aff. Ex. 14.) St. Hilaire repeatedly requested reinstatement, but was never hired back. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶¶ 18, 19.)
St. Hilaire's doctors never cleared him to go back to work prior to August 2000. (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 145-47.) It was St. Hilaire's Tourette's Syndrome that prevented him from working. (Id. at 199-200.) After his termination, St. Hilaire told Minco what accommodations he needed for his Tourette's Syndrome in order to come back to work at Minco.5 (Id. at 137-38, 233-34.) To accommodate his Tourette's Syndrome, St. Hilaire requested "isolat[ion] ... from other employees," "limited interaction with co-workers," and "a manufacturing job where I would not be in close proximity of people for fear of uncontrollable body movements such as dropping a tool, accidentally striking someone, etc." (St. Hilaire Dep. Tr. at 47; St. Hilaire Aff. ¶ 21.) Minco was unwilling to provide the requested isolation accommodation and did not rehire St. Hilaire. (St. Hilaire Aff. ¶¶ 19, 21-22.) In 2001, St. Hilaire filed another disability discrimination charge with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, but the Department dismissed his case after finding no probable cause. (Cloutier Aff. Ex. 26.) The dismissal was upheld on appeal. (Id.)
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). In viewing the evidence, the Court makes its inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir.1996); see also Adkison v. G.D. Searle & Co., 971 F.2d 132, 134 (8th Cir.1992). The burden is on the moving party, Enterprise Bank, 92 F.3d at 747; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), and summary judgment should be granted only where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The nonmoving party, however, may not rest upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings. Rather, the nonmovant must establish the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Neither mere allegations nor denials are sufficient. Id. In essence, the court performs a threshold inquiry to determine whether there is need for trial. Id.
Minco moves for summary judgment on each count of St. Hilaire's six count Complaint. Counts One and Three allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daisley v. Riggs Bank, N.A.
...claims are usually sustained only where a plaintiff has suffered significant physical injury."); St. Hilaire v. Minco Prods., Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 999, 1010 (D.Minn.2003) ("to maintain an action for either negligent retention or negligent supervision, the existence of a threat, or reasonable......
-
Kiesau v. Bantz
...threat of or actual physical injury to sustain a claim for negligent supervision and retention. See, e.g., St. Hilaire v. Minco Prods., Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 999, 1010 (D.Minn.2003). A federal district court, however, has now determined under Texas law, if an employee commits an actionable to......
-
Loos v. Napolitano
...VII as the exclusive vehicle for judicial remedy of claims of discrimination in federal employment); St. Hilaire v. Minco Products, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 999, 1010 n. 18 (D.Minn.2003) (Title VII does not apply to disability-discrimination Thus, Loos's sole remedy for disability discrimination......
-
Mell v. Minn. State Agric. Soc'y
...Id. § 825.216(c) ; See Hatchett v. Philander Smith Coll. , 251 F.3d 670, 677 (8th Cir. 2001) ; St. Hilaire v. Minco Prods., Inc. , 288 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1008–09 (D. Minn. 2003). The Fair argues that Mell was not entitled to restoration for two reasons. First, it says that her position was el......