Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 63
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dukowitz worked for Hannon Security as a security officer from Nov 2005 until termination on Mar 18, 2009.
- In July 2008 she took a seasonal daytime position which could become permanent or end the job depending on future availability.
- Dec 2008-Hannon ended Dukowitz’s hours; she asked to be kept on if shifts reopened; she was called back for one New Year’s Eve shift.
- Dukowitz applied for unemployment benefits; an ALJ dismissed Hannon’s challenge to eligibility.
- Hannon terminated Dukowitz on Mar 13, 2009, citing lack of future work and performance concerns.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Hannon on claims; it later awarded $1,361.35 in costs and disbursements; Dukowitz appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-policy wrongful discharge claim viability | Dukowitz contends public-policy exception applies | Hannon argues no viable public-policy wrongful-discharge claim exists | No viable public-policy wrongful-discharge claim |
| Implied private right of action under unemployment law | Dukowitz asserts implied right of action for retaliatory discharge | Hannon argues no implied right of action exists | No implied private right of action found under unemployment law |
| Costs and disbursements when in forma pauperis | Dukowitz argues court should consider in forma pauperis status | Hannon contends costs must be awarded as law provides | District court correctly awarded costs to prevailing party; no discretion to denybased on in forma pauperis status |
Key Cases Cited
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987) (public-policy wrongful discharge limited to refusing to violate the law)
- Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc., 715 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 2006) (not deciding broader public-policy wrongful-discharge question; notes reluctance to expand beyond Phipps)
- Stubbs v. N. Mem. Med. Center, 448 N.W.2d 78 (Minn.App. 1989) (declined to create new tort; cautioned about expanding at-will doctrine)
- Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283 (Minn.App. 1987) (example of limits on expanding existing duties; caution in creating new claims)
- Sparrow v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 272, 534 N.W.2d 551 (Minn.App. 1995) (recognizes unemployment-law beneficiaries; used in public-policy context)
- Midway Massage, Inc., 695 N.W.2d 138 (Minn.App. 2005) (implied-right-of-action analysis guide)
- Buck v. Freeman, 619 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.App. 2000) (example approving strict reading of remedial statutes against implying extra remedies)
- Lara v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1994) (cited as comparison for public-policy discharge notion)