Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: May 30, 2008 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of May 30, 2008, the Minnesota appellate courts released opinions on the following topics that may be of interest to our clients:
1.
Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance - Surviving Dependents
2.
Minnesota Human Rights Act - Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment Claims
1. MINNESOTA NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - SURVIVING DEPENDENTS
- The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the definition of “dependent” under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act excludes a decedent’s girlfriend and is limited to surviving spouses and children.
Decedent’s girlfriend, with whom he resided and shared financial resources, sought survivors’ economic loss benefits under the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 65B.41-.71 (2006). The Supreme Court denied the surviving girlfriend’s claim that she was entitled to benefits under the Act because the term “dependent” is clearly defined to include only surviving spouses and children of the decedent. Minn. Stat. § 65B.44, subd. 6 (2006). The Supreme Court held that the statute’s plain language was clear and specific in defining the class of dependents as only surviving spouses and children, and to expand the class of qualifying dependents as the claimant suggested would surely burden the courts and contravene the legislative purpose of the Act.
Auto Owners Ins. Co., v. Perry , A06-1235 (Minn. 5/29/08). (Justice Page dissenting).
2. MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT - EMPLOYER LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
- Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment by a supervisor is not required to prove that the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take timely and appropriate action.
- The EEOC’s definition of supervisor will be used to determine if an individual is a supervisor for purposes of sexual harassment claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
- Plaintiff must produce evidence indicating that the employee’s misconduct was foreseeable in order to hold the employer vicariously liable for an intentional tort of employee.
Plaintiff sued her employer for violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.03, subd. 43, and 363A.08, subd. 2 (2006), based on a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and assault and battery by a supervisor. Her claims were dismissed because the district court concluded, as a matter of law, that there was insufficient evidence to show: (1) that her employer knew or should have known about the supervisor’s harassment; and (2) that the perpetrator was, in fact, her supervisor for purposes of vicarious liability. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed summary judgment as to the claim of sexual harassment under the Act and affirmed the dismissal of the assault and battery claims.
First, the Court held that a plaintiff who brings a claim under the MHRA for sexual harassment by a supervisor is not required to prove that his or her employer knew or should have known about the sexual harassment and failed to take timely and appropriate action before vicarious liability will attach. Instead, the Court, relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Ellerth and Faragher), held that vicarious liability will attach if the hostile work environment is created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.
The Court, however, preserved available defenses to the employer as outlined in the Ellerth and Faragher decisions where no tangible employment action (i.e. discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment) has taken place against the employee: (1) where the employer exercises reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior and (2) where the employee unreasonably fails to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid the harm.
Next, the Court determined that the perpetrator in this case was the employee’s supervisor. In adopting the definition provided by the EEOC, the Court held that an individual will qualify as a supervisor under the MHRA if the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment.
As to assault and battery claim, the Court stated that to hold an employer liable for the intentional tort of an employee, there must be evidence that the misconduct was foreseeable. Here, the only evidence adduced was the employer’s proactive adoption of a sexual harassment policy. This, in and of itself, was insufficient to show that the assault and battery by the employee was foreseeable.
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., A06-1693 (Minn. 5/30/08). (Justices Gildea and Page dissenting in part).
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, |
Writer this Week: |
Matthew J. Mahoney |