Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corporation
2014 Minn. LEXIS 449
| Minn. | 2014Background
- In 2006 Darrel Schmitz, a U.S. Steel maintenance mechanic, reported a work-related back injury and says supervisors warned him not to file an accident report or he could be fired; testimony about the warning conflicted.
- Schmitz later sustained another back injury and, after being unable to return with prior duties, never went back to U.S. Steel. He sued in 2008 under Minn. Stat. § 176.82 (retaliatory discharge / threat-to-discharge) and under the MHRA; district court granted summary judgment to U.S. Steel on all claims.
- The court of appeals reversed on the § 176.82 claims and remanded; on remand Schmitz added a threat-to-discharge claim, requested a jury, and obtained a bench verdict awarding $15,000 emotional-distress damages and attorney fees. The district court quashed his jury demand for retaliatory-discharge claims.
- On further appeal the court of appeals held (1) a § 176.82 retaliatory-discharge claim seeking money damages is legal in nature and entitles the plaintiff to a jury trial, and (2) the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense is not available to a § 176.82 threat-to-discharge claim.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on (1) whether § 176.82, subd. 1, entitles a plaintiff to a jury trial and (2) whether an employer may assert the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to a threat-to-discharge claim. The court affirmed the court of appeals on both issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Const. art. I, § 4 guarantees a jury trial for a retaliatory-discharge claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82, subd. 1 | Schmitz: statute creates a civil action at law seeking only monetary damages, so constitutional jury right applies | U.S. Steel: WCA replaced common-law remedies; Legislature did not provide jury right so WCA claims (including § 176.82) lack jury trial | Held: Plaintiff has constitutional right to jury trial for § 176.82 retaliatory-discharge claims seeking money damages; statute creates a civil action at law analogous to historical legal claims |
| Whether the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense is available to employer for a threat-to-discharge claim under § 176.82, subd. 1 | Schmitz: employer not entitled to Faragher/Ellerth defense for threats to discharge under § 176.82 | U.S. Steel: defense should extend beyond sexual-harassment context to shield employers from supervisor misconduct where elements are met | Held: Faragher/Ellerth defense does not extend to § 176.82 threat-to-discharge claims; employer may not assert it |
Key Cases Cited
- Breimhorst v. Beckman, 227 Minn. 409, 35 N.W.2d 719 (1949) (WCA remedies replace common-law work-injury actions; no jury right for compensation claim)
- Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002) (statutory retaliatory-discharge claims seeking money damages are actions at law and can carry constitutional jury right)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (establishes affirmative Faragher/Ellerth employer defense in supervisor sexual-harassment hostile-environment cases)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (companion to Faragher setting elements of employer affirmative defense)
- Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (adopts Faragher/Ellerth framework under Minnesota Human Rights Act)
- McDaniel v. United Hardware Distrib. Co., 469 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1991) (§ 176.82 is not a codification of the common law)
- Tyroll v. Private Label Chemicals, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. 1993) (court recognized jury right for claims connected to WCA when nature of claim is common-law legal issue)