Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown Surgery Center, and Minnesota Department of Human Services/BRS, Intervenors.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 17, 2016No. A15-856Published

1DissentAnderson, Justice

The word “voluntary,”- as used in the voluntary-recreational-program exception, Minn.Stat. § 176.021, stibd. 9 (2014), is unambiguous and has one reasonable plain meaning. But that reasonable plain meaning is not followed by the court’s decision. Under the court’s definition, a program is “voluntary” only if it is attended “willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.” And as applied by the court, the alternatives to program attendance provided by Rosemount — taking paid leave or unpaid leave — are “constraints” on “pay or benefits” such that attendance is involuntary. This is…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Colorado v. SpringSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Deal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
  5. Carcieri v. SalazarSupreme Court of the United States · 2009

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API