Ali M. Shire 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., 875 N.W.2d 289

Ali Shire, a full-time weekend-shift shipping employee, attended a Rosemount annual employee-recognition event held during the last three hours of his shift and was injured playing laser tag.
Rosemount’s handbook described recognition events as “voluntary,” but did not explain pay or leave consequences for nonattendance.
Employees had three options for that time: attend and receive regular pay, request to use accrued vacation (limited by a departmental cap), or request unpaid leave.
Shire argued attendance was not truly voluntary because the only way to be paid for that time was to attend (otherwise pay would be forfeited or vacation used); Rosemount defended the event as voluntary and alternatively argued the specific activity (laser tag) was voluntary.
The compensation judge and the WCCA held the program was not voluntary; the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether a program is “voluntary” under Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9 and whether voluntariness should be assessed at the program or activity level.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employer-sponsored recreational program is “voluntary” when it occurs during work hours and employees must either attend to get paid or use limited vacation/unpaid leave	Shire: attendance was not voluntary because the only way to receive pay without depleting scarce vacation or forfeiting wages was to attend; this economic pressure makes attendance involuntary	Rosemount: program was voluntary because alternatives (vacation or unpaid leave) existed; employer told employees the event was voluntary	Held: Not voluntary when the only realistic way to be paid is to attend or to sacrifice limited vacation/pay; statutory "voluntary" must have independent meaning distinct from "ordered or assigned"
Whether voluntariness should be assessed for the overall program or individual activities within it (e.g., laser tag)	Shire: statute concerns voluntariness of the program as a whole, not each activity	Rosemount: subdivision 9’s examples ("athletic events") show focus on individual activities; injury happened during a voluntary activity	Held: Statute’s plain language makes "voluntary" modify "program"; voluntariness is evaluated at the program level, not per activity

Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy, 840 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 2013) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co., 869 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 2015) (canon against surplusage in statutory construction)
State v. Nelson, 842 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 2014) (context matters in selecting dictionary definitions)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (voluntariness in guilty pleas requires absence of coercion overbearing the will)
State v. Fearon, 166 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1969) (defining "voluntary" as an act of choice in statutory context)