Articles

'Top 10' Cases of the Decade from "A" to "Z"

"[T]he promise of a decade of loneliness . . ."

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (1925)

By Marshall H. Tanick

It is customary at this time of year to do a compilation of the most notable cases decided by the Federal and State appellate courts in Minnesota during the past 12 months.

But, since this is the end of the first decade of the 21st Millennium, it's appropriate to extend the compilation to the Top 10 cases of the past 10 years. As usual, the survey is not confined to landmark litigation, but extends to cases that are important, interesting, and occasionally unusual. They represent many a diverse subject, extending from "A" (age discrimination) to "Z" (zealous prosecution) and a whole lot in between.

Without further ado, here's the "Top 10" cases of the first decade of the 21^st century, one selected for each year.

Non-compete Negated (2000)

Reconciliation of two statutes, the Uniform Arbitration Act and the Human Rights Act, resulted in non-enforcement by the Supreme Court of a non-compete agreement in Corell v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2000). The case concerned a dentist who was fired after his wife, a dentist at the same clinic, took a job at a competing facility. The discharged dentist brought a charge of marital discrimination before the Human Rights Department, while his employer sued to compel arbitration under a mandatory arbitration clause in his employment agreement.

The Court, reversing an appellate court decision, held that the "exclusivity" provision of the Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.11, barred the arbitration. The decision predated a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court a few months later upholding mandatory arbitration agreements in "Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).

The Corell case was one of two rulings of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Supreme Court in 2000 refusing to enforce noncompete contracts. In the other, Burke v. Fine, 608 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. App. 2000), the Appellate Court rejected an effort by a medical clinic to enforce a noncompete against a cardiologist on grounds that the physician continued to work for the facility for the years after the contract expired, which negated the 2-year restrictive period.

Dual Dad's Duel (2001)

A duel between dual dads, one the claimed biological father, and the other the mother's current spouse, led to the putative father's right to a blood test to determine his parentage in Witso v. Overby, 627 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 2001). Construing the Minnesota Parentage Act, Minn. § 125.51, et seq., it affirmed lower court rulings allowing the testing to proceed.

The Court rejected the "chicken-and-egg dilemma." The putative father cannot seek testing for a declaration of paternity unless he first exhibits test results that show he is the father. Rather, it relied on case law in other jurisdictions establishing that "putative fathers of children born to women married to other men have protectable interests in establishing their paternity."

Whistleblowers Win (2002)

It's hard to recall, but whistleblowers were occasionally victorious, at least at the beginning of this decade.

In Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 2002), the Supreme Court dispensed with the oft-raised "public policy" defense that whistleblowing must affect the public in general, rather than pertain solely to individual whistleblowers or fellow co-workers.

The ruling enhanced the rights of whistleblowers under Minn. Stat. § 181.932, as did another case in the same year, Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002), which allowed jury trial for whistleblowers under Article I, Section 4 of the state Constitution.

Bodah Bodes Badly

The common law right of privacy recognized by the state Supreme Court late in the 20th century, was retrenched in Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2003), which involved unauthorized dissemination of social security numbers of employees within the workplace.

The decision restricted the right established five years earlier in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 1998). The Court in Bodah dismissed a class action by 21 truck drivers on grounds that the wrongful distribution was not statutorily "widespread" to be actionable under Lake.

The ruling in Bodah boded badly for privacy claimants. They generally cannot pursue actions for publication of truthful data unless the dissemination occurs through the media or to a potentially large group of recipients.

Murder Matter (2004)

Charged with murdering a neighbor woman, the defendant in State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2004) was not allowed to present evidence of alternative perpetrators because there was no direct evidence connecting either of the two other suspects to the scene of the crime.

The Supreme Court reversed the matter on grounds that the Trial Court incorrectly used a "clear and convincing" standard and failed to review the evidence to determine if it was reversed. State v. Spreigl, 272 Minn. 488, 139 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 1965).

The ruling led to re-trial a few years later in Sherburne County District Court. This time, the alternative evidence was allowed, but did not persuade the jury, which convicted him.

Age Action (2005)

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement in Minnesota protecting older workers was invalidated by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ace Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. IBEW, 414 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2005). The case considered a clause in the collective bargaining agreement that had been enforced for many years requiring that at least 20% of workers be at least 50 years old.

The measure, aimed at job security for older employees, was challenged after two employees over 50 were laid off, bringing the employer out of compliance with the contractual 1:4 ratio. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson in Minnesota vacated an arbitration award and ordered reinstatement of the two laid off employees, deeming it a violation of the prohibition of the Minnesota Human Rights Acts of discrimination on account of age.

The Eight Circuit affirmed, holding that the Minnesota statute, unlike its Federal counterpart, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), proscribes discrimination based on age, whether favorable or unfavorable to older employees. The outcome conflicted with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court a year earlier in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 (2004), that the ADEA does not protect younger workers against discrimination.

Unemployment Upset (2006)

One of the more provocative and, upsetting to employees, unemployment rulings in recent years was the decision by the Court of Appeals in Skarhus v. Davanni's, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2006). The claimant, a fast food employee, sought benefits after she undercharged herself by $3.30 for a meal at the facility.

The Appellate Court deemed the employee's behavior, which the worker claimed was inadvertent, to constitute disqualifying "misconduct" under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4. Despite the small size of the oversight, it barred benefits because the employer could "no longer entrust" the employee with her duties of receiving and recording customer's payments.

Fantasy Fight (2007)

The fight over "fantasy" baseball games was resolved in favor of an online server that uses identities of major league baseball players in C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007).

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, upheld a lower court decision allowing an online server to use names and statistics of major league players, without charge, in "fantasy" baseball games.

The Court reasoned that the "right of publicity" claimed by major league baseball to control the names and identities of baseball players "must give way" to the rights of "fantasy" sports participants under the First Amendment to use statistics "in the public domain."

Harassment Hassle (2008)

The framework for a sex harassment case was established by the state Supreme Court in Freiler v. Carlson Marketing Group, 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008). Adopting Federal precedent, the Court held that a sex harassment claimant asserting wrongdoing under the Human Rights Act against a supervisor need not prove that the employer failed to take appropriate, timely action. The claimant can prevail in such hassles under "vicarious liability for an actionable or hostile environment created by a supervisor."

The decision, however, allows management to assert affirmative defenses that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior and that claimants unreasonably failed to follow the company's sex harassment policies. But neither of these affirmative defenses, however, are applicable if there is adverse "tangible employment actions" such as discharge, demotion, or underinsured reassignments, among other matters.

Meanwhile, intentional tort claims against an employer due to supervisoral misconduct is subject under Freiler to a standard of "foreseeability" to invoke vicarious liability.

Whistleblower Woes (2009)

The decade is coming to a conclusion with whistleblowers realizing woes in the workplace. In Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC, 771 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2009), the Supreme Court held that a whistleblower claim must be predicated upon "actual" violation of law. It reversed the determination by the Appellate Court allowing a real estate sales person to pursue a whistleblower claim on grounds that the activity complained of, a conflicting dual buyer-seller relationship by a co-worker, did not constitute a violation of any specific law.

The lowly status today of whistleblowers in 2009 comes full circle from their more elevated status 10 years ago. As these cases reflect, jurisprudence has come full circle in Minnesota during the first decade of the Millennium.

Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the law firm of MANSFIELD, TANICK & COHEN, P.A., in Minneapolis and St. Paul. He is Certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) and represents employers and employees in a variety of workplace related matters.