# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 23 59

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo hn Ekb la d

Pla in ti ff - App el la nt

v.

In de pe nd en t Sc ho ol Dis tri ct No. 6 25 ; Val eri a Si lv a, in di vi du al ly and in he r Offi ci al Cap aci ty; Ther es a Bat tl e, in di vi du al ly and in he r Offi ci al Cap aci ty
Defe nd an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Mi nn es ot a Defen se Lawy ers Ass oc ia ti on

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll ee(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 18 Fi le d: Aug us t 8 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ERICKSON, an d GRAS Z, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.On Decem be r 4, 20 15
, Jo hn Ekb la d, whi le wor ki ng as a te ach er an d lu nc hr oo m

su pe rv is or at Cen tra l Sen io r Hig h Sch oo l in St

. Pau l
, M i nn es ot a, in te rv en ed in a lu nc hr oo m fig ht

. Ekb la d was as sa ul te d by a st ud en t in vo lv ed in th e fig ht an d su ffer ed in juri es

. He br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t th e sc ho ol di st ric t an d it s em pl oyees, al le gi ng

ne gl ig en ce an d ne gl ig en t su pe rv is io n. He al so fil ed cl ai m s ag ai ns t Vale ria Si lv a (Su pe rin te nd en t for th e sc ho ol di st ric t fro m 20 09 th ro ug h 20 16 ) an d There sa Bat tl e (Ass is ta nt Su pe rin te nd en t s i n c e Ju ly of 20 13 ) un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, al le gi ng a vi ol at io n of a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht to a sa fe wor k en vi ro nm en t. The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s o n a ll cl ai m s, co nc lu di ng th at 1
Ekb la d ’s ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s were pr eem pt ed by th e Mi nn es ot a W or ke rs ’
Co m pe ns at i o n A c t (“ W CA”) an d th at he di d no t ad eq ua te ly su pp or t hi s § 19 83 cl ai m s. Ekb la d ap pe al s, as se rti ng th at he fal ls wit hi n reco gn iz ed ex cep ti on s to th e W CA an d t ha t h is § 1 98 3 c la im s ar e v ia bl e. W e aff irm.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Ekb la d was em

pl oyed by Cen tra l Sen io r Hig h Sch oo l as a ph y si cal sc ie nc e
te ach er an d lu nc hr oo m su pe rv is or

. As a lu nc hr oo m su pe rv is or , he tri ed to m ai nt ai n

or de r an d di sc ou rag e st u d e nt fig ht s. W hi le th e sc ho ol di st ric t ge ne ral ly in st ru ct ed

te ach ers to in te rv en e in fig ht s if th ey fel t th ey co ul d do so sa fel y , th e di st ric t di d no t

r e q u i r e t e ach ers to in te rv en e. Teach ers were no t su bjec t to di sc ip li ne fo r fai li ng to br eak up a fi gh t.

On Decem

be r 4
, 2 0 1 5
, a fig ht br ok e ou t du rin g th e lu nc h pe rio d an d Ekb la d

at te m pt ed t o br eak it up

. One of th e st ud en ts in th e fig ht res po nd ed by at ta ck in g Ekb la d an d se rio us ly in

juri ng h i m. Afte r th e be at in g, th e st ud en t as ke d on lo ok ers ,

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-“ Did y ou se e m e sl am th at whi te -as s te ach er? ” Ekb la d req ui red m ed ic al tre at m en t fo r

hi s i n ju r ie s. The sc ho ol di st ric t ha s pa id fo r Ekb la d’s m ed ic al bi ll s, an d he ha s

rece iv ed work ers ’ co m

pe ns at io n b en efi ts

.

On Mar ch 1, 20 16
, Ekb la d fil ed su i t in st at e co ur t ag ai ns t th e pr es en t de fen da nt s, al le gi ng : 1 ) ne gl ig en ce an d ne gl ig en t s up erv is io n b y th e sc ho ol di st ric t

an d it s em pl oyees, an d 2) vi ol at io ns by Si lv a an d Bat tl e of hi s su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht to a sa fe wo rk en vi ro nm en t. Defe nd an ts rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t.

Ekb la d al le ge d th at sc ho ol ad m in is tra to rs de li be r a t e ly ig no red st ud en t

m is co nd uc t an d crea t e d an en vi ro nm en t th at be cam e in crea si ng ly da ng ero us to
st ud en ts an d te ach ers

. He su bm it te d te st im on y fro m ot he r te ach ers th at s ch oo l ad m in is tra to rs , aware of pr ev io us raci al di sp ar i t y in di sc ip li ne rat es , in te nt io na ll y

crea te d a race -co ns ci ou s po li cy fo r st ud en t di s c i p l in e. Und er th e po li cy , m in or it y
st ud en ts were tre at ed le n i e n t l y, ev en in cas es in vo lv in g vi ol en ce, whi ch ha d th e de si red res ul t of de crea si ng rep or ta bl e di sc ip li ne di sp ari ty. The te ach ers te st ifi ed th at
st ud en t m is be ha vi or in crea se d whe n st ud en ts real iz ed th ey wou ld no t be di sc ip li ne d fo r m is co nd uc t— ev en vi ol en t m is co nd uc t. Ekb la d cl ai m s th at hi s as sa ul t was th e di rect res ul t of sc ho ol ad m in is tra ti on po li cy reg ard in g m in or it y st ud en t m is co nd uc t.

II

. Dis cus si on

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g th e

ev id en ce an d al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th eref ro m in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no n- m ov an t. Fu v. Owens
, 62 2 F.3 d 88 0, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ The co ur t sh al l gr an t

su m m ary jud gm en t if th e m ov an t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e d i s p u t e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a); see Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 22 (19 86 ).

-3

-Mi nn es ot a’s wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n syste m is ge ne ral ly th e ex cl us iv e rem ed y fo r an em pl oyee who su ffer s a job -rel at ed pe rs on al in jury. Mi nn

. St at

. § 17 6.0 31

. If th e W CA’s ex cl us iv e rem ed y pr ov is io n is ap pl ic ab le
, a co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er

an y cl ai m se ek in g red res s fo r an em pl oyee’s in

juri es

. McGo wan v. Our Sav io r’s
Lut he ran Ch ur ch , 5 27 N.W .2d 83 0, 83 3 (Mi nn

. 1 9 9 5 ) ( c i t in g Huh n v. Fo le y Bro s., 22 N.W .2d 3 (Mi nn

. 19 46 )). The W CA ha s th ree rel ev an t ex cep ti on s to th e ex cl us iv e

rem ed y pr ov is io n: th e as sa ul t ex cep ti on , th e i n t en ti on al act ex cep ti on , an d th e

co em pl oyee li ab il it y

ex cep ti on . Non e are ap pl ic ab le in th is cas e.

The as sa ul t ex cep ti on ex cl ud es in juri es res ul ti ng fro m an at te m pt “ to in jure th e

em pl oyee be cau se of pe rs on al reas on s.” See Mi nn

. St at

. § 17 6.0 11
, su bd iv

. 16

. Here th e ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y be cau se st ray ev id en ce of raci al an im us do es no t qu al ify

as a “ pe rs on al reas on ” whe n it ov erl ap s wit h em pl oym en t-r el at ed an im

us

. See Fu
, 62 2 F.3 d at 88 3 (h ol di ng th at th e W CA co ve red pl ai nt iff ’s in juri es de sp it e ev id en ce of raci al an im

us be cau se th e as sa ul t oc cu rred du e to wor k- rel at ed te ns io n be twee n th e
pa rti es ). Ekb la d’s at ta ck er cal le d hi m “ whi te -as s,” bu t he als o call ed hi m a te ach er,

an d th e co nt ex t m ak es cl ear th at Ekb la d’s em pl o ym e nt pl ay ed a cau sa l ro le in th e

as sa ul t. See McGo wan , 52 7 N.W .2d at 83 4 (h ol di ng th at th e r a p e o f a ho m el es s sh el te r em

pl oyee by a sh el te r cl ie nt in th e wor kp la ce du rin g work ho ur s di d no t fall wit hi n t he ass au lt ex cep ti on ).

The in te nt io na l act s ex cep ti on ex cl ud es in juri es res ul ti ng fro m an em pl oyer’s

“ co ns ci ou s an d de li be rat e in te nt to in fli ct in jury.” Gun de rs on v. Har r i n gt on , 63 2
N.W .2d 69 5, 70 4 (Mi nn

. 20 01 ). “ [S]uch in te nt m ay no t be in ferr ed fr o m m ere

ne gl ig en ce, th ou gh it be gr os s.” I d

. at 70 2 (q uo ti ng Brei m ho rs t v. Bec km an , 35
N.W .2d 71 9, 73 0 (Mi nn

. 19 49 )). The ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y in t h i s c a s e; whi le Ekb la d a l l e g es th at hi s su pe rv is or s’ po li ci es ne gl ig en tl y res ul te d in a wor kp la ce

en vi ro nm en t whe re st ud en t vi ol en ce was pr ev al ent, the ev ide nc e does no t su gg es t th at th ey “ co ns ci ou sl y

an d d el ib erat el y ” in te nd ed to in jure hi m

.

-4

-The co em pl oyee ex cep ti on ap pl ie s whe n a pl ai nt iff can sh ow: 1) th at a

co em pl oyee ha d a pe rs on al du ty to ward th e em pl oyee, th e br each of whi ch res ul te d in th e em pl oyee’s in

jury, 2) th at th e a c t i v i t y c au si ng th e in jury was no t pa rt of th e

co em pl oyee’s ge ne ral ad m in is tra ti ve res po ns ib il it ie s, an d 3) th at th e co em pl oyee was
gr os sl y ne gl ig en t in pe rfo rm in g th at pe rs on al du ty. See W ic ke n v. Mo r r i s , 52 7
N.W .2d 95
, 98 (Mi nn

. 19 95 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e sa m e i n a t w o

- p a rt te st ). The

co em pl oyee ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y in th is cas e be cau se th e co em pl oyee ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y to su it s ag ai ns t th e em pl oyer it se lf, an d Ekb la d’s ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s are
pr im ari ly agai ns t t he sch oo l d is tri ct

.

Eve n if co ns tru ed as ag ai ns t th e na m ed co em pl oyees, th e cl aim s w oul d st il l fai l. The on ly du ty Ekb la d arg ue s was br each ed is a du ty to pr ov id e a sa fe wor kp la ce. Tha t d u t y i s he ld by t he em

pl oyer an d is no n- de le ga bl e to co em pl oyees. See St rin ge r v. Mi nn es ot a Vik in gs Fo ot ba ll Cl ub
, LLC, 70 5 N.W .2d 74 6, 75 6 (Mi nn

. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Dawle y v. This iu s, 23 1 N.W.2d 5 55 , 55 8 (M in n. 19 75 )) (exp la in in g th at a m an ag er

wou ld be im m

un e fro m a su it al le gi ng a br each of a du ty to pr ov id e a sa fe wor kp la ce be cau se th at du ty is he ld by the em pl oyer); s ee al so W ic ke n v . Mo rri s, 5 27 N.W .2d
95
, 99 (Mi nn

. 19 95 ) (ex pl ai ni n g t ha t “ [t]he se em in gl y ha rs h res ul t of ho ld in g a

co -em pl oyee im m

un e fro m li ab il it y ari si ng f r om br each of th e em

pl oyer’s du ty to
pr ov id e a s afe wo rk

pl ace i s a n eces sa ry

pa rt o f th e st at ut or y

sch em e”). Th e d is tri ct

co ur t p ro pe rly con cl ud ed th e WCA barre d Ek bl ad ’s cla im s.

Ekb la d al so al le ge d vi ol at io ns of a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht to a sa fe wor k

en vi ro nm en t. To pl ead su ch a cl ai m , Ekb la d m us t al le ge act io ns whi ch “ vi ol at ed on e

or m or e fu nd am en ta l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s” an d were “ sh oc ki ng to th e co nt em po rary

co ns ci en ce.” C.N. v. W il lm ar Pu b. Sch
., In de p. Sch

. Dis t. No. 34 7, 59 1 F.3 d 62 4, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Fl owe rs v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is
, 47 8 F.3 d 86 9, 87 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). The de fen da nt s’ al le ge d act io ns reg ard in g sc ho ol po li ci es , ho wev er

m is gu id ed
, do no t sa ti sf

y ou r st an da rd fo r su ch cl ai m s. See And rews v. Sch afer
, 88 8
F.3 d 98 1, 98 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (q uo ti ng Kars jens v. Pi pe r, 84 5 F.3 d 39 4, 40 8 (8 th Ci r.

-5

-20 17 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) (“ To sh oc k th e co ns ci en ce th e de fen da nt s’

co nd uc t m

us t be so se ve re

... so di sp ro po rti on at e to th e ne ed pr es en te d, an d

... so in sp ire d by m al ic e or sa di sm rat he r th an a m erel y care le ss or un wis e ex ces s of zeal th at it am ou nt ed to a br ut al an d in hu m an e ab us e of of fic ia l po wer li te ral ly sh oc ki ng
to th e co ns ci en ce.”)

.

II I. Con cl us io n

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-