Tricas v. Pine County

Background

Tamara Tricas worked for Pine County for more than 24 years. The County Board appointed her County Recorder in 2003. The County eliminated that position in December 2016, when Tricas was over 40. Her supervisor, Kelly Schroeder, absorbed the Recorder’s duties, and the County did not hire a replacement.

In July 2016, Tricas requested and received approval for weekly leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to take her minor son to the Fraser Academy for autism treatment. The County said it was facing a projected $500,000 budget deficit and needed additional staff cuts. Schroeder proposed eliminating the Recorder position, and the County Board approved the proposal in December 2016. The elimination saved approximately $90,000.

Tricas originally sued in state court. She alleged retaliation and interference under the Family and Medical Leave Act, age discrimination under Minnesota Statute § 181.81, and invasion of privacy under state law. Pine County removed the case to federal court because of the federal leave-law claim. The County then moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result.

Family and Medical Leave Act Retaliation

Tricas claimed that Pine County eliminated her position because she took protected family-medical leave. The County argued that she had no evidence connecting her leave to the decision. It also argued that the position was eliminated for legitimate financial reasons and because there was not enough work to justify it.

The court found that Tricas had presented enough evidence to establish an initial retaliation case. In particular, the evidence could support a finding that Schroeder knew or should have known about Tricas’s leave when she recommended eliminating the position. The court also found genuine factual disputes about whether the County’s stated reasons were a pretext for retaliation. Those disputes included differences between the County’s budget explanation and testimony that Tricas did not have enough work, the timing of the decision, and the fact that her was the only position recommended for elimination among approximately 150 General Fund positions. The court held that the pretext issue should be presented to a jury and denied summary judgment on this claim.

Family and Medical Leave Act Interference

Tricas also alleged that the County interfered with her rights under the leave law. The court explained that an interference claim concerns denial of a benefit to which an employee is entitled. Because the County had approved the leave Tricas requested, the court treated her allegation that she suffered adverse action because she took leave as a retaliation claim instead. The court granted summary judgment to the County on the interference claim.

Age Discrimination

Tricas alleged that Pine County terminated her because she was over 40, under Minnesota Statute § 181.81. The court concluded that the statute applies only to private-sector employers and therefore does not apply to the County. The court also stated that even if Tricas were allowed to amend her complaint to add a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, that claim would fail on the record presented. The court found no evidence, apart from the fact that a younger employee assumed her duties, showing that age was a factor in eliminating her position. It granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim.

Invasion of Privacy

Tricas alleged that Schroeder disclosed private information about her son’s medical treatment to two coworkers. The court explained that Minnesota privacy law generally requires publicity to the public at large or to so many people that the information is substantially certain to become public knowledge. Disclosure to two coworkers was not enough. The court also noted evidence that Tricas had told coworkers about her son’s medical issues and had previously publicized his condition and treatment while seeking public assistance. It granted summary judgment to Pine County on the invasion-of-privacy claim.

Disposition

The court ordered that Pine County’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It was DENIED as to Tricas’s Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim and GRANTED as to the remaining claims: Family and Medical Leave Act interference, age discrimination, and invasion of privacy.