Mr. Shire filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits.

Rosemount denied liability, asserting that Mr. Shire's injury was excluded from coverage under Minn.Stat. § 176.021(9), which exempted injuries incurred during “voluntary recreational programs” from workers' compensation coverage.

Mr. Shire countered that the event was not “voluntary” because it occurred during his shift and he was required to attend to obtain his wage without sacrificing his limited vacation time. Mr. Shire also argued that he could not take vacation or unpaid leave without his supervisor's prior approval. He also contended that the statute addressed the voluntary nature of the employee-recognition program, not the voluntary nature of the laser tag game.

The workers' compensation judge held that the relevant question was whether the “program” was voluntary, not whether the activities within the program were voluntary. The employee-recognition event was not a “voluntary” program, the compensation judge concluded, because without the option of remaining at work for the last three hours of his shift, Shire's only alternatives were to sacrifice either his pay or his limited vacation time.

The Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals (“WCCA”) affirmed, and the dispute reached the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Minnesota Law

Generally, an employee whose injury:

aris[es] out of and in the course of employment

is entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

Minn.Stat. § 176.021(1).

An exception provides:

Injuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer, including health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics, do not arise out of and in the course of the employment even though the employer pays some or all of the cost of the program. This exclusion does not apply in the event that the injured employee was ordered or assigned by the employer to participate in the program.

Minn.Stat. § 176.021(9) (emphasis added).

The Minnesota Supreme Court's Decision

The court affirmed.

In its decision, the court rejected Rosemount's principal argument that the employee-recognition event was “voluntary” because employees had the option of either requesting to use vacation time or requesting to take unpaid leave. Rather, the court observed, employees were “constrained” by the fact that attendance at the employee-recognition event was the only means by which they could obtain their wages without expending limited vacation time. It added that, to hold that a program was “voluntary” under these circumstances “would ignore the financial consequences that employees would have faced for failing to attend: either the loss of pay or the depletion of limited vacation time.”

The court then held that, a recreational program was not “voluntary” when the employees' options were limited either to (1) attending the program and getting paid or (2) forfeiting pay or benefits.

The court next rejected Rosemount's argument that the word “program” should be defined on an activity-by-activity basis, holding that the exception required that the program be voluntary, not the individual activities offered within the program. It concluded that the phrase “voluntary recreational program” in Minn.Stat. § 176.021(9) referred to a voluntary “program,” not voluntary activities within a program.

The case is Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., No. A15–0856 (Minn. Feb. 17, 2016). Attorneys involved include: Michael G. Schultz, Sommerer & Schultz, P.L.L.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent; Richard A. Riemer, Erstad & Riemer, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for relators.