The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that an employee, who was injured and received workers’ compensation benefits, could proceed with a suit against his employer for discrimination because they allegedly failed to accommodate his disability and retaliated against him when he sought accommodation. This disability discrimination suit would fall under the Minnesota Human Right Act and would not be barred by the exclusive remedy of workers’ comp.

Daniel was a firefighter for the Minneapolis Fire Department for 14 years. He was injured numerous times over the course of his employment, specifically to his right ankle and shoulders. After one right ankle injury his doctor prescribed him “supportive tennis shoes with arch support and high rescue boot ankle” to reduce pain and improve stability in his ankle. He filed for comp benefits to pay for the shoes, and for lost wages. His employer accepted this and paid for the shoes as well as black tennis shoes with special inserts he could wear while he was in the station house. After a few weeks he was told he could not wear the black tennis shoes because they did not comply with the Department’s policy for station shoes. He went back to his old shoes, but his ankle started to swell again was reinjured, and two months later he was climbing down from a fire truck and injured his shoulder. He was placed on light-duty for his shoulder, but he claimed that not being able to wear his prescribed shoes made even his light-duty fall outside of his physical restrictions. The Department placed him on leave and said he could return if his work restrictions allowed him to wear shoes that were compliant with their footwear policy. There were several meetings to try and find a shoe that would fit their policy and his footwear prescription, but they could not come to an agreement. The Department told him he would have to comply with their policy if he wanted to get workers’ comp benefits for his injury and continue his employment with the department.

Daniel sued under both the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Workers’ Compensation Act. He said the City violated the human rights act by not allowing him to wear his prescribed shoes which he says were a reasonable accommodation and maintained that he was retaliated against for seeking an accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment and a trial court determined the claim under the human rights act was not barred because the workers’ comp act did not provide a remedy for his discrimination claim. A court of appeals reversed, and the case went to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

The court held that the employee could pursue claims under each act (Workers’ Compensation Act and Human Rights Act) because they each provide a distinct cause of action that redresses a discrete type of injury to an employee. The human rights act holds employers liable for discrimination while the workers’ comp act holds employers liable for work-related and personal injuries. They reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded it back to trial court.

Read the case here and read a summary here.