Henningsen v. City of Blue Earth

184 F.Supp.3d 710

Kevin Henningsen, Plaintiff,

v.City of Blue Earth, Defendant.

Civil No. 14-4482 ADM/HB

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed April 22, 2016

Brock J. Specht, Esq., Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jana M. O'Leary Sullivan, Esq., League of Minnesota Cities, St. Paul, MN, on behalf of Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 10, 2016, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendant City of Blue Earth's ("Blue Earth" or the "City") Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 18]. Plaintiff Kevin Henningsen's ("Henningsen") Complaint [Docket No. 1] alleges that his employment with Blue Earth was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. For the reasons set forth below, Blue Earth's Motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Henningsen's Employment

Blue Earth Light and Water ("BEL&W"), a municipal department, provides electric, gas, water, and other utility services for Blue Earth, Minnesota. O'Leary Sullivan Aff. [Docket No. 22] Ex. 53 § 7.03. Henningsen began working at BEL&W as an electrical line worker in 1991. Id. Ex. 1 ("Henningsen Dep.") 35:4–8. As a line worker, Henningsen's duties included working on specific projects, performing general maintenance, and reading electrical meters. Id. 44:3–5. In 2000, Curt LaMaack, BEL&W's operations manager, selected Henningsen to be line superintendent. Id. 46:11–22. As line superintendent, Henningsen's general responsibilities included supervising construction, operations, maintenance, and repair crews; researching and resolving customer issues and concerns; and planning and designing construction, maintenance, and repair projects. O'Leary Sullivan Aff. Ex. 9. In this capacity, Henningsen determined daily tasks and schedule, delegating duties to subordinate employees as he saw fit. Henningsen Dep. 113:12–114:13.

1. Early Performance Evaluations

Henningsen's employment file includes five performance appraisals. The first, for the year 2001, rated Henningsen favorably across each topic of review and concluded that Henningsen has "done a great job this year." Specht Decl. [Docket No. 27] Ex. B. Henningsen's 2006 appraisal was also uniformly positive, reporting that Henningsen has done "excellent work" and that BEL&W is "glad to have you in the Electric Supt role. Great ability to work efficiently and independently." Id. Ex. C. Henningsen's 2008 review was similar and concluded with "excellent job, excellent work. Another good year." Id. Ex. D.

2. Employee Complaint and Investigation

In the summer of 2009, Steven Sem, a fellow BEL&W employee, complained that Henningsen had been harassing him and had slapped him in the face. O'Leary Sullivan Aff. Ex. 12 at 12. Sem reported the incident to Tim Stoner, who was the safety director for the Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association at the time. Id. p. 23; Ex. 2 ("Stoner Dep.") 105:8–18. Stoner relayed Sem's complaint to LaMaack. Id. Ex. 4 ("LaMaack Dep.") 8:14–20; 107:11–15.

In October 2009, BEL&W responded to Sem's complaints by hiring Setter & Associates, an employment investigations firm, to examine Sem's complaint. Id. Ex. 3 ("Leland Dep.") 52:4–7; Ex. 10 ("2009 Investigation Report") at 11. In addition to the slapping incident, the investigator probed over ten other complaints of Henningsen's conduct, including allegations of angry outbursts, harassing and intimidating phone calls, and other physical touching. See generally 2009 Investigation Report. The investigation included seven interviews of BEL&W employees, including Sem, Henningsen, and LaMaack. Id. at 11.

A. J. Childs, a former BEL&W lineman, was interviewed. In addition to reporting that Henningsen had angry outbursts that seemed to come out of nowhere, Childs reported that in 2007, Henningsen grabbed and bear-hugged him against the side of a work truck. Id. at 58–62. Childs further related an incident in 2008 when Henningsen had become upset and threw a screwdriver over his and a another employee's heads. Id. at 63–65. Childs also claimed that in 2008 Henningsen threw a piece of a light pole at him while Henningsen was elevated in a bucket lift. Id. at 70-73.

The investigator determined that it was more than likely that most of Sem's and Childs' allegations against Henningsen were true. Id. Paul Leland, BEL&W's general manager at the time, considered LaMaack's recommendation to terminate Henningsen's employment. Leland Dep. 8:17–24; 30:22–31:2. However, since BEL&W did not have a respectful workplace policy and because the allegations against Henningsen were not well documented, Leland concluded that BEL&W lacked the necessary foundation to terminate Henningsen. Id. 32:9–15.

Instead, on March 11, 2010, BEL&W issued a written reprimand to Henningsen. Id. Ex. 20. The reprimand states that Henningsen's conduct and behavior created a hostile work environment and that Henningsen was required to complete an anger management class. Id. The reprimand cautions that should Henningsen engage in future inappropriate or offensive behavior, he would be subject to additional disciplinary action up to and including termination. Id.

After the investigation, BEL&W augmented its employee handbook by adding a Respectful Workplace Policy. LaMaack Dep. 39:12–15; O'Leary Sullivan Aff. Ex. 11. Employees were also given training on the handbook's policies. Henningsen Dep. 73:19–21.

3. Follow-up Investigation

BEL&W requested that Setter & Associates return within a year to assess working conditions and evaluate the success of the changes BEL&W implemented after the 2009 report. Id. Ex. 22. The follow-up assessment, which took place on October 13, 2010, determined that the reprimand following the 2009 investigation temporarily improved working conditions, but continuing efforts were needed to resolve personality conflicts. Id. The investigation also noted that Henningsen, purportedly in an effort to protect himself from further allegations of misconduct, obtained notarized statements from BEL&W employees he supervised regarding whether the working environment is or has ever been hostile and whether they believe Henningsen is a good supervisor. Id. Henningsen was told by the investigator that this activity was unprofessional and should stop. Id.

The follow-up assessment resulted in Henningsen's second written reprimand. Id. Ex. 23. This reprimand, dated November 17, 2010, states that:

The follow-up investigation substantiated that continuing interdepartmental conflicts are a result of 1) ineffective leadership on your part concerning supervisory/subordinate relationships, and/or 2) a lack of effort/ability to respect and work with utility employees from other departments. Several employees expressed to the investigators that interpersonal conflicts continue to be fostered by you regarding Power Plant employees and others.

Id. The reprimand further states that Henningsen's efforts to protect himself by obtaining statements from coworkers was "unprofessional and intolerable." Id. The second reprimand concluded similarly to the first. Henningsen was reminded to observe professional standards in the workplace and failure to do so would result in additional discipline up to and including termination. Id.

4. Later Employment Evaluations

The substance of the reprimands were reflected in Henningsen's 2010 performance appraisal. Id. Ex. 48. While BEL&W recognized that Henningsen was a skilled worker, his performance appraisal concludes that "personell [sic] conflicts out weigh [sic] his other good work." Id. Henningsen's 2011 performance appraisal, in contrast, was positive across the board. Id. Ex. 49. BEL&W rated Henningsen's overall performance as exceeding expectations and noted that his "overall performance has been great." Id.

B. Henningsen's Disability

The morning of May 2, 2009, Henningsen had a seizure. Id. Ex. 25b. The convulsions lasted approximately three to four minutes and Henningsen remained confused and disoriented for roughly ten minutes after the convulsions stopped. Id. At a May 22, 2009 neurology evaluation, Henningsen described having had "episodes occurring about two to three times per month over the last 8 years" where his thinking and speaking were briefly impaired for five to ten seconds. Id. The neurologist reported that the May 2 event was consistent with a "generalized seizure" and the other episodes were "consistent with simple partial seizures." Id. In a follow-up appointment one week later, Henningsen was diagnosed with epilepsy and his neurologist instructed him to abstain from driving for six months and cautioned against performing any work on electrical lines. Id. Ex. 26a.

On June 1, 2009, Henningsen avers he gave LaMaack his neurologist's evaluation. Henningsen Decl. ¶ 5. LaMaack responded by telling Henningsen to "use your best judgment." Id.¶ 6. Henningsen did not explicitly request to be removed from driving duties or from working on power lines. Henningsen Dep. 64:17–23. Shortly thereafter, LaMaack contacted Leland and told him of Henningsen's seizure. Leland Dep. 38:22–39:8. Epilepsy was not mentioned. Id. 39:17–19. Leland told LaMaack that Henningsen should be permitted time off from work to address his medical concerns. Id. 37:22–39:4.

On November 2, 2009, Leland spoke with Henningsen and his wife. Id. Ex. 51.

While the impetus for this conversation is not in the record, according to Leland's notes, Henningsen claimed that LaMaack's response to "use your best judgment" is to "get rid of the guy with epilepsy." Id. Leland avers this is the first time he learned that Henningsen had been diagnosed with epilepsy. Id.

During Setter & Associates' 2010 follow-up investigation, the investigator informed BEL&W that Henningsen reported that he had previously disclosed his epilepsy to BEL&W and requested workplace accommodations. Leland Dep. 49:25–50:14. On October 3, 2010, LaMaack...