Court Opinion

ID: 9497649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:56:45.032463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:20.038460
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The district court based its grant of summary judgment to the defendant on Tupper’s failure to file a claim seeking workers’ compensation benefits. This is not fully consistent with Minnesota law.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has not directly addressed whether a claim or retaliatory discharge under Minn.Stat. § 176.82 requires an employee to file a workers’ compensation claim. In Flaherty v. Lindsay, 467 N.W.2d 30 (Minn.1991), the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that two types of conduct were prohibited by the statute: “retaliatory discharges (or threatened discharges) and obstructions of workers’ compensation benefits.” Id. at 32. The court held that obstruction involved “some actual denial or disruption in the receipt of benefits” but did not indicate whether this applied to retaliatory discharge cases. Id.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals have issued inconsistent opinions on this issue. Compare Randall v. Northern Milk Prod., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 456, 460 (Minn.Ct.App.1994)(upholding a finding of retaliatory discharge where employee intended to file a workers’ compensation claim, but did not actually file the claim until two months after his discharge), with Furrer v. Campbell’s Soup Co., 403 *624N.W.2d 658, 660 (Minn.Ct.App.1987)(af-firming summary judgment where employee only filed claim after her discharge). The more recent case, Randall, shows that a retaliatory discharge claim does not necessarily fail if the employee has not filed a claim at the'time of his discharge. In that case, the employee reported a back injury to his employer, but initially stated that he was unsure whether the injury occurred at work. Randall, 519 N.W.2d at 458. After further questioning, he stated that he was injured at work, and was immediately fired. Id. The court held that this conversation provided a sufficient basis for a fact-finder to infer that the employee was terminated because he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim. Id. at 460.
The relevant question in this case is not whether Tupper actually filed a workers’ compensation claim, but whether he has presented a prima facie case that he was discharged because of his perceived intent to seek workers’ compensation benefits. Tupper has shown that he was injured while at work, that his employer was aware of his injury, and that his termination occurred shortly after he reported his injury. While Tupper did not specifically raise the issue of workers’ compensation and did not seek benefits after his termination, this does not foreclose his claim as a matter of law. Breitenfeldt v. Long Prairie Packing Co., 48 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1180 (D.Minn.1999) (holding that an employee’s failure to seek benefits “go[es] to the weight of the evidence” and did not preclude his claim).
I would reverse the district. court and remand this case for trial.