Zobel v. Carver Cnty., A12-2037
| Decision Date | 01 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | A12-2037 |
| Parties | James Zobel, Appellant, v. Carver County, et al., Respondents. |
| 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
Carver County District Court
Andrew G. Birkeland, R. Daniel Rasmus, Rasmus Law Office, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
William L. Davidson, Timothy P. Jung, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant, a discharged employee, challenges summary-judgment dismissal of his claim of wrongful discharge in retaliation for seeking workers' compensation benefits.Because appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to establish that he was discharged for seeking workers' compensation benefits, we affirm.
On May 25, 2005, respondent Carver County Community Development Agency (CDA), offered appellant James Zobel a position in maintenance. Appellant had a back injury from 1982 that had required surgery. At the time he accepted the position, he had a "sore" back from a recent move to a new apartment.
On Monday, June 13, 2005, appellant began work. He was assigned to scrape and paint, and to help move two toilets. Appellant stated in his deposition that he twice suggested to his supervisor that rather than scraping weatherbeaten panels, which was strenuous on his back, the panels should be replaced, but his supervisor rejected these suggestions.
The next day, between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., appellant called CDA's call-in line and left a message that When asked at his deposition if his message to CDA stated that he hurt himself or that he hurt himself at work, appellant said, "I can't remember for sure." Appellant also informed CDA that he hurt his back.
According to appellant, within an hour, his supervisor came to his apartment and fired him. Appellant stated at his deposition that he did not know whether his supervisor had heard his message when he was fired; appellant did not depose his supervisor. Appellant saw a doctor on June 14 and was informed that he could not go back to work.
For unemployment compensation purposes, CDA reported that appellant In answers to interrogatories, CDA stated that the reason for appellant's discharge was "deficient performance and attitude."
On July 3, 2006, appellant initiated a workers' compensation claim. A workers' compensation judge denied appellant's claim after finding that appellant did "not prove[] that he sustained [] a specific injury . . . on or about June 13, 2005." The judge found that Appellant had a pre-existing injury that had worsened over time, eventually resulting in a total disability. The judge's memorandum stated that "any injury which might have been sustained in June 2005 was no more than minor and temporary."
In 2011, appellant initiated an action in district court for retaliatory discharge, alleging that he was discharged for seeking workers' compensation benefits. The district court granted CDA's motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellant was collaterally estopped from raising a retaliatory-discharge claim because the issue of whether he was injured at work was already determined in the workers' compensation action, and, alternatively, that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. This appeal followed.
A district court must grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits . . . 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. An appellate court reviews a"district court's legal decisions on summary judgment under a de novo standard, and view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." RAM Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
A cause of action for retaliatory discharge exists when an employee can show statutorily protected conduct by the employee, adverse employment action by the employer, and a causal connection between the two. Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 444 (Minn. 1983). If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate reason for its conduct, after which the employee may demonstrate that the employer's given reason is pretextual. Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625, 630 (Minn. App. 2011) (), review denied ; see Schmitz v. U. S. Steel Corp., _ N.W.2d _, _ 2013 WL 1942991, at *10-11 (Minn. App. 2013) ().
The district court found that appellant's claim did...
To continue reading
Request your trial