§
Subdivision 1.Retaliatory discharge.
Any person discharging or threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits or in any manner intentionally obstructing an employee seeking workers' compensation benefits is liable in a civil action for damages incurred by the employee including any diminution in workers' compensation benefits caused by a violation of this section including costs and reasonable attorney fees, and for punitive damages not to exceed three times the amount of any compensation benefit to which the employee is entitled. Damages awarded under this section shall not be offset by any workers' compensation benefits to which the employee is entitled.
§
Subd. 2.Refusal to offer continued employment.
An employer who, without reasonable cause, refuses to offer continued employment to its employee when employment is available within the employee's physical limitations shall be liable in a civil action for one year's wages. The wages are payable from the date of the refusal to offer continued employment, and at the same time and at the same rate as the employee's preinjury wage, to continue during the period of the refusal up to a maximum of $15,000. These payments shall be in addition to any other payments provided by this chapter. In determining the availability of employment, the continuance in business of the employer shall be considered and written rules promulgated by the employer with respect to seniority or the provisions or any collective bargaining agreement shall govern. These payments shall not be covered by a contract of insurance. The employer shall be served directly and be a party to the claim. This subdivision shall not apply to employers who employ 15 or fewer full-time equivalent employees.
Notes of Decisions
Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., 852 N.W.2d 669 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 268× “An employer may not assert a Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to vicarious liability for a threat-to-discharge claim under Minn. Stat. § 176.82 , subd. 1. Affirmed.”
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp., 831 N.W.2d 656 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 128× “Steel challenges the district court’s judgment awarding respondent Darrel Schmitz $15,000 in damages, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs, for threatening to discharge Schmitz for seeking workers’ compensation benefits in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82 , subd. 1,…”
Summers v. R & D Agency, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 72× “Appellants, Mark and Lori Summers and their four minor children, contend the district court erred by: (1) dismissing their claim under Minn.Stat. § 176.82 (1998) that respondents obstructed Mark Summers' receipt of workers' compensation benefits; (2) dismissing appellants'…”
Schmidgall v. FilmTec Corp., 644 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 16× “82 provides: Any person discharging or threatening to discharge an employee for seeking workers' compensation benefits or in any manner intentionally obstructing an employee seeking workers' compensation benefits is liable in a civil action for damages incurred by the employee *…”
McDaniel v. United Hardware Distrib. Co., 469 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 42× “Employer United Hardware Distributing appeals the court of appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s determination that McDaniel’s action under Minn.Stat. § 176.82 (1990), for retaliatory discharge for asserting workers’ compensation rights, is barred by the statute of limitations.”
Daniel v. City of Minneapolis, 923 N.W.2d 637 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 8× “See Minn. Stat. § 176.82 , subd. 1. He also alleges that the City retaliated against him for seeking workers' compensation benefits and failed to provide continued employment when it was available.”
Kaluza v. Home Ins. Co., 403 N.W.2d 230 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 42× “Donald and Glenola Kaluza filed this action in federal district court, alleging intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, misrepresentation and fraud, violation of Minn.Stat. § 176.82, abuse of process and fraud upon the courts, and violations of Minnesota’s…”
Snesrud v. Instant Web, Inc., 484 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 36× “Snesrud alleges he was discharged in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 176.82 (1986). The trial court found for Instant Web and Snesrud alleges three errors on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to permit a jury…”
Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., 897 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 24× “Minn. Stat. § 176.82 , subd. 1 (2016). The district court granted summary judgment to Dahlke, concluding that Sanchez had not raised a genuine issue of material fact about whether Dahlke discharged him because he sought workers’ compensation benefits.”
Wojciak v. N. Package Corp., 310 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 16× “The insurers interposed answers denying coverage and alleging that the intent of Minn.Stat. § 176.82 (1980), upon which Wojciak based his action, was to deter employers from retaliatory dismissals of employees seeking compensation and that public policy therefore precludes…”
Flaherty v. Lindsay, 467 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 18× “The City of Brooklyn Center and Chief of Police James Lindsay 1 appeal the court of appeals’ affirmance of the trial court’s judgment awarding damages for emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages to injured employee Dennis Flaherty for violation of Minn.Stat. §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.