Mechanics fail to prove schedule change amounts to retaliation

An employee suffers an adverse employment action when there is a tangible change in duties or working conditions constituting a material employment disadvantage, not simply because he is unhappy.

Case name: Arens, et al. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 06-4701(DSD/JJG) (D. Minn. 03/06/09).

Sub-subcontractor's employee not entitled to coverage from contractor (02/25/13)
Cleaner's use of helpers indicates independent contractor status (11/01/12)
Statement made weeks before termination moves claim forward (09/30/11)
Failure to rebut rehab counselor's report boosts driver's claim (04/19/12)
Hospital not subject to penalties for worker's fall in elevator shaft (04/19/12)

Ruling: The U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota granted the employer summary judgment on six employees' claims for workers' compensation retaliation and intentional obstruction of benefits.

What it means: An employee suffers an adverse employment action when there is a tangible change in duties or working conditions constituting a material employment disadvantage, not simply because he is unhappy.

Summary: The employees worked as mechanics in a production facility for a food corporation. All six had worked in the facility Monday through Friday for more than 20 years and had received workers' compensation at different times. A supervisor informed them that due to their 40-hours per week medical restrictions their schedules would be changed to a Tuesday through Saturday shift.

The employees argued that the schedule change was an adverse employment action. Moreover, they argued that the change, combined with their supervisor's statements that they could return to a Monday through Friday schedule once their medical restrictions were lifted, constituted threats to discharge them for seeking workers' compensation benefits. The employees argued their employer deliberately obstructed or hindered their right to work within their medical restrictions by changing their schedules.

The District Court found no adverse action, and therefore, no retaliation. It found that the employees received workers' compensation benefits during their careers without recrimination and failed to demonstrate that their receipt of benefits caused wrongful retaliation. The court noted that a job reassignment that does not involve a corresponding reduction in salary, benefits, or prestige but only "minor changes in duties or working conditions, even unpalatable or unwelcome ones" is not an adverse employment action.

The court also found that the schedule change did not obstruct their right to work within their medical restrictions. The employees failed to show that the employer deliberately obstructed or hindered benefits in "a manner that is outrageous and extreme" and did not show "actual denial or disruption in the receipt of benefits."

April 20, 2009

Newsletter Sign-up