906 F. Supp. 2d 874
D. Minnesota2012Background
- Radcliffe was hired in 2000 by Securian as Investment Accounting Manager, later promoted to Director of Fund and Investment Accounting in 2009, reporting to LePlavy.
- Allegations describe a hostile work environment due to LePlavy’s treatment of female employees and comments about disability, contributing to Radcliffe’s depression and health decline.
- Radcliffe has lupus, fibromyalgia, and polyarthritis; health issues became prominent in 2008-2010, with requests for accommodations and FMLA involvement beginning in 2010.
- In 2003 and 2006, Securian offered counteroffers to stay, including promotions and time-off accommodations; Radcliffe later pursued other offers (Assurant) and was allegedly assured there would be no negative repercussions for taking time off.
- In 2010-2011, Radcliffe alleges (i) demotion, loss of responsibilities, and age/gender-related hostility; (ii) mismanagement of leave, including denial of FMLA guidance and misapplication of vacation time as sick leave; (iii) bonus denial for 2010 and disputes over returning to four days per week; (iv) involuntary commitment to a mental health ward following a physician referral.
- Radcliffe took FMLA leave in 2010-2011, worked partially from home, and later ended in long-term disability with ongoing disputes about termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing violation tolling applies to MHRA claims | Radcliffe contends continuing violations toll the period. | Securian argues discrete acts outside the period do not toll. | Continued violations not established for most MHRA claims; some timely acts remain actionable, others time-barred. |
| Whether discrete acts outside the limitations period toll the MHRA claims | Continuing pattern supports disability and gender claims. | Discrete acts (e.g., demotion) are time-barred. | Discrete acts outside period are not tolled; portions of Counts 2–5 time-barred. |
| Whether common law claims are preempted by WCA or MHRA | Common law claims are not preempted. | Common law claims preempted by MHRA and WCA. | Counts Six and Seven preempted; WCA and MHRA preemption foreclose common law claims. |
| Whether common law claims are sufficiently pled or amenable to amendment | Requests leave to amend if deficiencies exist. | Amendment would be futile due to preemption and time-bar. | Leave to amend denied; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether IIED and negligent supervision claims survive preemption and viability standards | Claims alleged ongoing distress and supervisor misconduct. | Claims fail on merits and are preempted. | IIED and negligent supervision claims dismissed as preempted and insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P’ship v. Essar Steel Minn., LLC, 871 F.Supp.2d 843 (D.Minn.2012) (treatment of 12(b)(6) vs 12(c) motion standards and merits-based review)
- Ali v. Frazier, 575 F. Supp.2d 1084 (D.Minn.2008) (post-answer Rule 12 motion treated as Rule 12(c))
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S.2002) (continuing violation doctrine for discrete acts; framework for tolling)
- Treanor v. MCI Telecomm’cns Corp., 200 F.3d 570 (8th Cir.2000) (application of continuing violation in ADA context)
- Berry v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971 (5th Cir.1983) (non-exhaustive factors for continuing violation test)
- Mehl v. PortaCo, Inc., 859 F.Supp.2d 1026 (D.Minn.2012) (assault exception and MHRA preemption considerations)
- Parker v. Tharp, 409 N.W.2d 915 (Minn.C.App.1987) (assault exception and workplace conduct limitations)
- Hempel v. Fairview Hosp. & Healthcare Servs., Inc., 504 N.W.2d 487 (Minn.Ct.App.1993) (state hospital staff actions not automatically extreme and outrageous)