 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kopet v. General Mills5/3/2005
employees who had initiated the spanking. Id. There was no indication of any sexual harassment in Meintsma.
In McGowan, the director of a homeless shelter was raped by a disruptive shelter client. 527 N.W.2d at 832. The assault took place in the director's office after the director had taken him there to defuse the situation. Id. The director first applied for and received workers' compensation benefits for injuries and then instituted a common law tort action against the shelter. Id. at 831.
In both the Meinstma and McGowan cases, the supreme court dismissed the employees' tort claims because WCA was preemptive of tort claims and constituted the exclusive remedy. Meinstma, 684 N.W.2d at 440; McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834. In neither case did the court find that the employers were part of intentional assaults, but in both cases the court found that the assaults were related to the employment setting, and that the intentional injury and the assault exceptions in the WCA did not apply. Meinstma, 684 N.W.2d at 440; McGowan, 527 N.W.2d at 834. In both cases there was some physical assault, physical injury and claim or activity that involved the WCA.
The parties have directed our attention to the recent decision of this court dealing with a sexual harassment claim by an employee against an employer. Stengel v. E. Side Beverage, 690 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 2005). In Stengel, this court addressed the applicability of the assault exception to the WCA. Id. at 383. We stated that the district court had to make "fact-specific inquiries to determine the assailant's motivation" and had "to determine whether the alleged motivation to injure respondent was based on 'personal animosity' toward respondent arising from circumstances 'wholly unconnected with the employment.'" Id. at 385-86. This court found that the "wholly unconnected" standard requires an analysis of the employee's job and concluded that there was no particularized hazard inherent in the type of position held by the claiming employee. Id. at 386. This court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the alleged acts directed against the employee were for personal reasons. Id. at 386-87.
The alleged offensive conduct by Church against Kopet is similar to the conduct in the Stengel case. It appears to be unprovoked and spontaneous conduct by a fellow employee. Although occurring at the work site, the comments and contact directed at Kopet appear personal in nature. Unlike McGowan, Kopet was not placed at risk of this type of an attack because of the nature of his employment and the identity of the assailant. There is no evidence that the harassment inflicted on Kopet was part of a long-standing workplace tradition like the birthday paddling in Meinstma. This appeal concerns denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment. Stengel also involved summary judgment. Like Stengel, this appeal concerns what motivated Church as the assailant. Viewing the proceeding and record most favorably to the Kopets, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Church's alleged acts were directed against Kopet for personal reasons unconnected to employment. We conclude that summary judgment was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|