DOCKET NO. 12-1700-15387-2

 

DHR Case No. 40421

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Christine Hernandez,

                               Charging Party,

 

v.

 

Minnesota Correctional Facility –

Oak Park Heights,

                                Respondent.

 

 

 

 

DISCOVERY ORDER

          This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge based upon objections raised by Charging Party at the Prehearing Conference, held August 13, 2003, regarding Respondent’s Interrogatories and Document Requests.  The parties submitted letter briefs on the matter on August 15, 2003.

          Christopher R. Walsh, Attorney at Law, 270 Grain Exchange North Building, 301 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415, represents Charging Party Christine Hernandez.  Yvonne Shorts, Assistant Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St. Paul, MN 55101-2128, represents the Department of Corrections.           

Based upon the record in this matter, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

ORDER

1.               Charging Party shall provide Respondent with signed authorizations to release her medical and pharmacy records from January 1, 2000, to the present.

2.               Charging Party shall provide information regarding past employment as requested by Respondent.  However, Charging Party shall not be required to provide the amounts of unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation insurance proceeds, or any other wage replacement benefits she may have received. 

3.               Any private or confidential data provided in this matter shall be subject to the Protective Order issued in this matter on August 27, 2003. 

 

Dated this 27th day of August, 2004.

 

 

                                                                      _/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick______

                                                                      STEVE M. MIHALCHICK

                                                                      Administrative Law Judge

MEMORANDUM

          Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Charging Party seeks damages for mental anguish,[1] among other things, in a claim arising from Charging Party’s allegations of sexual harassment on the job.  Respondent asserts that by raising the issue of mental anguish, Charging Party has placed her mental condition in controversy, thereby waiving medical privilege.

An award of mental anguish damages does not require severe suffering or physical injury, and damages may be awarded based upon the subjective testimony of a charging party or her relatives and friends.[2] 

Minnesota case law states that “[a] sexual harassment plaintiff does not automatically place her mental condition in issue.  However, where a sexual harassment plaintiff claims psychological damage such as chronic anxiety, impaired relationships, a sense of low-esteem, and a feeling of blame, that sexual harassment plaintiff has placed her medical condition in controversy and discovery by the defendants into that condition may be allowed.[3]  Of course, discovery may be limited and private medical data must be maintained as not public by the party receiving it.[4]  In this case, the Charging Party seeks damages for mental anguish related to several physical and emotional conditions she alleges resulted from the sexual harassment, some of which require her to take medication.  Thus, she has placed her mental condition in controversy and waived her medical privilege with respect to that condition.  Respondent is therefore entitled to reasonable discovery to explore those claims. 

In Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3rd 1287, 1292-93 (8th Cir. 1997), the Defendants had sought to discover personal events in the lives of the Plaintiffs including detailed medical histories, childhood experiences, domestic abuse, abortions, and sexual relationships.  The 8th Circuit stated that such discovery was not relevant and so remote in time that it should not have been allowed. 

          The incidents complained of in this matter occurred in December, 2001.  Respondent seeks an order compelling Charging Party to execute authorizations for release of medical and pharmacy records.  It does not seek an adverse medical examination.  Respondent seeks medical records back to 1994 based on statements regarding medications in Charging Party’s deposition.  The request goes back too far.  Respondent will be allowed access to medical and pharmacy records back to January 1, 2000, which is approximately two years before the incidents occurred.  However, the scope of the discovery need not be limited to counseling related to the sexual harassment claims.  That would narrow the scope too much.  The fact that Charging Party does not intend to call any expert witnesses has no impact on the scope of discovery.  Respondent is still entitled to reasonable discovery to explore Charging Party’s claims.

Charging Party objects to providing information regarding any unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation, or disability benefits she may have received.  Charging Party cites Young v. City of Duluth, 410 NW2d 27 (Minn. App. 1987), a Veteran’s Preference case, for the proposition that generally unemployment compensation is not regarded as compensation received from other employment so as to be deductible in mitigation of damages.[5]  Young did hold that, but other cases have held just the opposite.[6]  More recently, it was held that the Veterans Preferences cases should not be followed and that Title VII precedent should be.  The Title VII cases say the “collateral source rule” should be applied.[7]  The general rule in Minnesota applicable in tort cases is the “collateral source rule.”  It provides that any benefit conferred upon the injured person from a collateral source is not credited against the tortfeasor’s liability, although it may partially or completely reimburse the Plaintiff for the injuries.[8]  Applying that rule here, if Charging Party were ultimately awarded any damages for lost wages, there would be no offset for any workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, or other wage replacement benefits she may have received.  Thus, she should not be required to provide any information regarding the amounts of any such benefits. 

SMM

 

         

 


[1] Minn. Stat. § 363.071, subd. 2.

[2] Bradley v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 471 N.W.2d 670, 677 (Minn. App. 1991), rev. denied; see also Kohn v. City of Minneapolis Fire Department, 583 N.W.2d 7, 14-15 (Minn. App. 1998), rev. denied (upholding mental anguish damages in a MHRA claim regarding failure to promote a Hispanic fire fighter); Ryther v. KARE 11, 864 F.Supp. 1525 (D. Minn. 1994) (noting that expert testimony or medical evidence is not mandatory to support an award of mental anguish under the MHRA); Kim v. Nash Finch Company, 123 F.3d 1046, 1065 (8th Cir. 1997) (medical or other expert evidence is not required to prove emotional distress under Title VII).

[3] Kresko v. Rulli, 432 NW2d 764, 770 (Minn. App. 1988) rev. denied (1989); Gillson v. Department of Natural Resources, 492 NW2d 835 (Minn. App. 1992) rev. denied (1993). 

[4] Haynes v. Anderson, 232 NW2d 196, 200 (Minn. 1975). 

[5] Actually, Charging Party cited an earlier appeal of this case at 372 NW2d 57 (Minn. App. 1985). 

[6] See, e.g. Pawelk v. Camden Township, 415 NW2d 47 (Minn. App. 1987).

[7] Hamlin v. Super 8 Motel, 2000 WC 622274, unpublished (Minn. App. 2000).

[8] Hueper v. Goodrich, 314 NW2d 828 (Minn. 1982).