Hate Crime Designation May be Defense to Avoid Comp Payout

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 | 0

By Jerry Sisk


Recently in California a sales clerk was stabbed to death at a Dollar Tree Store while she was working her shift. Afterward, the work comp insurer denied the deceased's family dependency benefits on the basis that the victim's killer was motivated for personal reasons. The death was apparently categorized as a hate crime.

Although California and Minnesota have different laws, it is possible that the same defense could be made in a similar situation in Minnesota.

Under Minn. Stat. 176.011, subd. 16,  a personal injury is an "injury arising out of and in the course of employment . . . but shall not include an injury caused by the act of a third person or fellow employee intended to injure the employee because of personal reasons, and not directed against the employee as an employee, or because of the employment."

In Hanson v. Robitshek-Schneider Co., the Supreme Court addressed injuries as the result of assaults in the work place. The court stated that the cases could fall into three categories:

1.  Noncompensable are cases where the assailant was motivated by personal animosity toward his victim, arising from circumstances wholly unconnected with the employment.
2.  Compensable cases are injuries resulting from assault where provocation or motivation arises solely out of the activity of the victim as an employee.
3.  In a middle ground are cases . . . where the assault was directed against the victim, neither as an employee nor for reasons personal to him or her. These would typically be compensable.