Articles

Workplace Watch Fall, 2009

Appellate Courts Decide Law Enforcement Cases

Here is a glimpse at some recent cases decided by the Federal and state courts regarding the rights and obligations of employers and employees in Minnesota taken from Marshall Tanick's recent monthly columns on employment law in Bench & Bar magazine

Judicial Law

Continuing Police Health Benefits; Degenerative Condition Denied. A police officer who underwent replacement of both knees due to a degenerative joint disease unrelated to injuries on the job was not entitled to continuing health insurance benefits under Minn. Stat. §299A.465. Although the police officer sustained knee injuries on three occasions while in the course of his duties, the knee replacements were unrelated to injuries on the job, which negates the claim that the employer must provide continuing health insurance benefits under the statute. In the Matter of Claim for Benefits of Mercado. 2009 WL 1587116 (Minn. App. 2009) (unpublished).

Unfair Labor Practice: Sheriff's failure to Comply With Reinstatement. The sheriff of Lake County was deemed to have committed an unfair labor practice under the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act, Minn. Stat. §179A by the court of appeals for failing to comply with a directive from the county board to reinstate a dismissed narcotics investigation. Because the sheriff did not pursue arbitration of the county board's directive reversing his decision and that the investigator be reinstated, the investigator was entitled to summary judgment on his claim that the sheriff violated PELRA, Minn. Stat. §179A.01, et seq. in light of the unambiguous provision of the collective bargaining agreement that requires the sheriff to comply with any decisions of the county board. The county is not required to indemnify the defense fees for the sheriff under Minn. Stat. §466.07 because the case was not one for damages, under the indemnification statute. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., v. Johnson, 2009 WL 1586810 (Minn. App. 2009) (unpublished).

Employment Termination; "At Will," No Public Policy Violation. An employee who claimed wrongful termination in violation of public policy lost his claim when the 8^th Circuit held that the employee did not have any rights because he worked under the "at will" doctrine, and there is no violation of public policy or any breach of contract arising out of the employment manual. The trial court's denial of widespread discovery also was appropriate because there was no need to engage in such broad discovery for the specific wrongful termination case. Semple v. Federal Express Corporation, 566 F.3d 788 (8^th Cir. 2009).

ERISA preemption; Interference Claim Barred. A Minnesota employee's claim of discrimination on violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which included an assertion of employer interference with his pension, was properly dismissed because the claim was preempted by the Employees' Retirement & Income Security Act (ERISA). The 8^th Circuit held that the claim was properly removed from the state court to federal court because it was completely preempted by ERISA. Summary judgment for the employer or the state law discrimination claim also was upheld because the claimant did not satisfy the "perception of disability" provision of the Human Rights Act by failing to show that the employer regarded him as having an impairment that substantially limited his ability to work. McLain v. Andersen Corp., 567 F.3 956 (8^th Cir. 2009).

ERISA; Termination for "Cause" Bars Severance. The 8^th Circuit of Appeals held that an employee who sued his employer under ERISA for firing him to prevent him from receiving benefits under the company's severance and stock plans could not pursue the case. Summary judgment was properly granted to the employer because the employee was

terminated for cause, which barred his entitlement to benefits under the exclusive language of the company's severance and stock option plans. Pendleton v. Quick Trip Corporation, 567 F.3d 988 (8^th Cir. 2009).

Unemployment Compensation; Notice of Future Discharge. An employee who received notice of future discharge is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if a job is available in any capacity for the employee, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled. The commission by receiving the notice of future discharge prior to the discharge being implemented, also bars the employee from receiving benefits under Minn. Stat. §268.095, subd. 4(1). Bangston v. Allina Medical Group, 766 N. W.2d 328 Minn. App. (2009).

LEGISLATION

Sick & Vacation Leave. A proposal in Congress, backed by Democrats in both houses, would require most employers to guarantee workers up to seven paid sick days per year. Currently, employees are not guaranteed any paid sick leave under federal law, although employees who work, on a full-time basis, for more than a year for employers with 50 or more employees can qualify for unpaid sick leave under the Family Medical & Leave Act (FMLA).

The bill, known as the Healthy Families Act, would cover employers with 15 or more employees. It would guarantee employees one paid hour of sick leave for each 30 hours of work, up to seven sick days per year, which could be used when the employee, a child, parent, spouse, or another close family member was ill. Another bill introduced in the House of Representatives would require large businesses to give workers up to one week paid vacation annually. Known as the Paid Vacation Act, it would cover employers with 100 or more employees. The same threshold as applies now to the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Observers expect the two bills to face a tough time in both legislative bodies this year because of the crowded agenda, including major health care reform proposals.

Attorneys Review Three "E" Supreme Court Rulings

Marshall H. Tanick (right) of the law firm of MANSFIELD TANICK & COHEN, P.A. joined two other prominent attorneys in reviewing the past Term of the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on three "E" areas. Mr. Tanick discussed ten employment cases decided by the High Court during its 2008-09 Term at a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) program presented by Clarion Legal Education at Thomson-Reuters publishing facility in Eagan, Minnesota. Joining Mr. Tanick were Professor David Schultz of Hamline University (center), who gave an overview of Supreme Court Term and discussed election law cases, and Thaddeus Lightfoot (left), an attorney with the Environmental Law Group in downtown Minneapolis, who discussed environmental law cases. Mr. Tanick's presentation was entitled "Tanick's Top Ten," which reviewed ten Supreme Court decisions affecting employment law, and he also offered some forecast about upcoming cases proceeding through the legal system. Copies of the written material and PowerPoint presentation by Mr. Tanick are available by contacting the law firm at: 800-4016-194.