Pearson v. St. Cloud Hosp.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CV-21-6760

Sarah R. Jewell, River Valley Law, P.A., Waite Park, Minnesota (for appellant)

Cally Kjellberg-Nelson, Quinlivan &Hughes, P.A., St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondents St. Cloud Hospital, et al.)

Michael J. Moberg, Elaine E. Luthens, Jackson Lewis P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent Emergency Physicians Professional Association)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. ^[*]

COCHRAN, JUDGE

Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), her claims under the Minnesota whistleblower act (MWA), and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also challenges the district court's denial of her motions to compel discovery. Because no genuine issues of material fact exist precluding the grant of summary judgment for respondents and any error related to the motions to compel is harmless, we affirm.

FACTS

Respondent St. Cloud Hospital is one of several medical facilities that make up respondent CentraCare Health System (collectively, CentraCare). Appellant Corey Pearson worked for CentraCare as a registered nurse at St. Cloud Hospital in the emergency trauma center. Although CentraCare employed the nurses who worked in the hospital's emergency trauma center during the relevant period, it did not employ the physicians. Instead, CentraCare contracted with respondent Emergency Physicians Professional Association (EPPA), which in turn employed the physicians who worked in the emergency trauma center.

Pearson left her employment with CentraCare in 2020 and initiated this lawsuit in 2021. The lawsuit was based on alleged harassment and retaliation by employees of CentraCare and EPPA.

Background^[1]

At the time of the underlying events, CentraCare's director of the emergency trauma center for the St. Cloud Hospital was responsible for managing the nurses in the unit. The CentraCare director also worked in a partnership with an EPPA medical director, who managed the EPPA physicians working in the emergency trauma center.

On February 25, 2020, Pearson told the CentraCare director that Dr. S, an EPPA physician, made sexual and inappropriate comments toward her while at work. She also reported that she had concerns about some nurses having relationships with doctors and acting unprofessionally. That day, the CentraCare director informed the EPPA medical director about Dr. S's conduct toward Pearson. Later that same day, the EPPA medical director placed Dr. S on administrative leave. The EPPA medical director spoke with Dr. S, who denied engaging in "sexual harassment," but did not deny engaging in the conduct reported by Pearson. EPPA terminated Dr. S's employment in March 2020.

On February 25, after telling her concerns to the CentraCare director, Pearson completed her shift in a different part of St. Cloud Hospital-the behavioral-health area- to avoid interacting with Dr. S. At the end of the shift, a different EPPA physician, Dr. B, approached Pearson. He asked her "if he had done anything that offended [her]." Dr. B followed up by explaining that Dr. S had told him that Pearson had recently reported sexual harassment in the workplace and stated that Dr. B was involved. The following day,

Pearson worked her shift without incident. At the start of Pearson's next shift, on March 2, Dr. B pulled Pearson aside. Pearson testified that Dr. B seemed upset and complained that "because of [her] reporting they had to do this sensitivity training" and that "having to do this training, it's a bunch of bullsh-t." Following this interaction, Pearson broke out in hives and the CentraCare director allowed her to leave work early. Throughout March 2020, Pearson requested that CentraCare take her off the schedule at St. Cloud Hospital.

On April 6, 2020, Pearson met with the EPPA medical director, who informed her that Dr. S had been terminated. Later that month, Pearson requested to return to work in the behavioral-health area and to work a shift alongside another nurse in case she needed to leave early. CentraCare allowed her to do so, and Pearson worked a partial shift on April 29. Pearson testified that other nurses "ignored" her during the shift and that one doctor gave her a "different look." Pearson worked her final shift at the emergency trauma center on May 8, alongside another nurse. On that day, Pearson was working "in the middle of the emergency room right behind where the doctors all sit," instead of in the behavioral-health area. During the shift, other nurses ignored her and one nurse "roll[ed] her eyes at [Pearson]." On May 28, Pearson sent a letter expressing her intent to end her employment at the emergency trauma center and to seek similar positions elsewhere within CentraCare.

During summer 2020, after filing a workers' compensation claim, Pearson worked with a rehabilitation consultant from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry to help her return to work as a nurse. CentraCare also worked with Pearson to find her another position within CentraCare, including identifying a registered-nurse position at a facility

in Monticello in June 2020. Instead, Pearson accepted a position outside of CentraCare in October 2020. Then, in March 2021, Pearson and CentraCare entered into a stipulated settlement of Pearson's workers' compensation claim related to alleged psychological injuries sustained on or about March 2, 2020, in the course of employment.

District Court Proceedings

Pearson served EPPA with a summons and complaint on August 10, 2021, and CentraCare on August 18, 2021, and filed an amended complaint in February 2022. Pearson's amended complaint alleged two counts of employment discrimination under the MHRA; two counts of violations of the MWA; and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The amended complaint alleged that one EPPA physician sexually harassed her. The amended complaint also alleged that Pearson suffered retaliation by CentraCare nurses and EPPA physicians after she reported that an EPPA physician sexually harassed her and that CentraCare nurses were prescribing medication without a physician's order. The amended complaint alleged that Pearson "had severe anxiety and panic attacks resulting in a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)."

CentraCare and EPPA each filed motions for summary judgment, which Pearson opposed. Pearson also filed motions to compel discovery against EPPA and CentraCare, which both opposed.

The district court denied Pearson's motion to compel discovery from CentraCare and denied in part and reserved in part Pearson's motion to compel discovery from EPPA. The district court subsequently granted CentraCare's and EPPA's motions for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.

Pearson appeals.

DECISION

Pearson argues that the district court erred by granting CentraCare's and EPPA's motions for summary judgment and dismissing her MHRA claims, MWA claims, and claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also argues that the district court erred by denying her motions to compel. We first address Pearson's arguments regarding the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims and then discuss her arguments regarding the motions to compel.

I. The district court did not err by granting CentraCare's and EPPA's motions for summary judgment.

"We review a district court's summary judgment decision de novo." Henry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 625, 988 N.W.2d 868, 880 (Minn. 2023). "We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if no genuine issues of material fact exist and if the [district] court accurately applied the law." Hanson v. Dep't of Nat. Res., 972 N.W.2d 362, 371-72 (Minn. 2022). Furthermore, "we may affirm a grant of summary judgment if it can be sustained on any grounds." Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Paul, 817 N.W.2d 150, 163 (Minn. 2012).

"In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving parties." Hanson, 972 N.W.2d at 372 (quotation omitted). To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present specific, admissible evidence that demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Doe, 817 N.W.2d at 163. "A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence regarding

an essential element to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions." St. Paul Park Refin. Co. v. Domeier, 950 N.W.2d 547, 549 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, "the nonmoving party must do more than rely on unverified or conclusionary allegations in the pleadings or postulate evidence which might be produced at trial." W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted).

For each of the claims, the district court determined that Pearson failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law was proper. We consider in turn Pearson's claims under the MHRA, her claims under the MWA, and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

A. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment on Pearson's MHRA claims. We first address Pearson's two MHRA claims, which alleged that CentraCare and EPPA engaged in sex discrimination and improperly handled her report of sexual harassment.

The MHRA prohibits, as relevant to Pearson's claims, unfair discriminatory practices related to employment. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.08 (Supp. 2023).^[2]...