Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc.
A16-154
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Mark Schaefer worked at Cargill Kitchen Solutions (CKS) from 2005 until termination in 2012; coworker Donovan Schultz admitted kicking Schaefer in the groin with a steel‑toed boot on September 20, 2011.
- Schaefer reported the kick to HR at varying times (he says Oct/Nov 2011; HR learned in mid‑2012); CKS had previously disciplined Schultz in 2007 for verbal altercations.
- Schaefer received several performance warnings in 2012 (unsafe forklift operation, mis‑shipping, attendance/tardiness), was suspended, and then discharged under CKS attendance policy on Sept. 19, 2012.
- Schaefer sued CKS and parent Cargill alleging sexual abuse/assault (battery), negligent retention and supervision, Minnesota Whistleblower Act retaliation, and sought punitive damages; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed Cargill; plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: it found genuine fact issues precluding WCA exclusivity, held the groin kick did not qualify as "sexual abuse" under the delayed‑discovery statute (so battery claim was time‑barred), and affirmed summary judgment on negligent retention/supervision, whistleblower, and punitive damages claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusivity bars tort claims (assault exception) | Schaefer: kick motivated by personal animosity and not connected to employment; assault exception applies | Respondents: kick was workplace horseplay/incident incidental to employment; WCA exclusive remedy | Denied summary judgment to defendants; genuine factual dispute on personal animosity and connection to employment so WCA not resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether battery claim qualifies as "sexual abuse" under Minn. Stat. §541.073 (delayed‑discovery, 6‑yr limit) | Schaefer: groin kick is nonconsensual sexual contact → sexual abuse → 6‑yr limitations applies | Respondents: kick is a strike, not "touching" for sexual contact; only 2‑yr battery limitations apply | Kick not "touching" as construed in State v. Ohrtman; delayed‑discovery statute does not apply; battery claim time‑barred |
| Negligent retention / negligent supervision (foreseeability and employer notice) | Schaefer: prior warnings, threats, and reputation put CKS on notice of violent propensities; failure to act was negligent | Respondents: prior incidents were verbal and remote in time; no admissible evidence of prior physical violence; CKS applied policy in 2007 | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: plaintiff failed to show employer knew or should have known of violent propensity or that the assault was foreseeable/in scope of employment |
| Whistleblower Act retaliation (causation and pretext) | Schaefer: reported kick and thereafter received warnings and discharge; temporal proximity and disputed facts show causation and pretext | Respondents: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (attendance/performance warnings, suspension) and intervening performance problems negate causation; honest belief in reasons | Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: timing and intervening events insufficient for causation; employer proffered credible reasons and plaintiff did not show pretext |
| Punitive damages | Schaefer: conduct warrants punitive relief | Respondents: no conscious disregard or high probability of harm by employer conduct | Affirmed summary judgment: no underlying liability or factual showing of requisite deliberate/reckless employer conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- McGowan v. Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 527 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. 1995) (assault exception to WCA exclusivity; requirements for personal animosity and disconnection from employment)
- Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc., 684 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2004) (assault exception did not apply to workplace ritualized spanking; contextual limits on assault exception)
- State v. Ohrtman, 466 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1991) (construction of "touching" in criminal sexual conduct statutes as contact designed to create sensory feeling)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for retaliation/ discrimination claims)
- DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997) (summary judgment: metaphysical doubt insufficient to defeat motion)
- Walsh v. Chas. Olson & Sons, Inc., 172 N.W.2d 745 (Minn. 1969) (horseplay during work hours can be compensable under WCA)