 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Woolley v. Panek6/29/2004
This is an appeal from a district court judgment dismissing appellant's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. The action arose out of respondents' statements during an investigation of a sexual-harassment claim, which resulted in appellant's termination from employment with the University of Minnesota. Appellant argues: (a) the district court was the proper forum for his defamation claims; (b) collateral estoppel does not apply because the issues are not identical to those decided against appellant in the university's grievance proceedings; (c) absolute immunity is not available to respondents; (d) the "waiver and release" appellant signed does not preclude this action; and (e) the district court abused its discretion in denying permission to amend the complaint. Because judicial immunity applies to respondents, we affirm; and because the immunity issue is dispositive, we do not reach appellant's other allegations on appeal.
FACTS
Appellant Robert J. Woolley was employed as a physician at Boynton Health Service, a unit of respondent University of Minnesota. Respondent Sandra Panek was also employed at Boynton.
On May 14, 2001, Panek filed a sexual-harassment claim against Woolley with the university's office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA). Respondent Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt, an employee of the EOAA, interviewed Panek, Woolley, and others, investigated the allegations, and prepared a written statement of the allegations. Respondent Julie Sweitzer, director of the EOAA, submitted reports on August 28, 2001, and September 24, 2001, based on the investigation. The reports concluded that Wooley violated the University of Minnesota's sexual-harassment policy.
On September 28, 2001, the director of Boynton Health Service terminated Wooley's employment for just cause. Woolley challenged his termination by filing a grievance under the university's grievance policy. An arbitration panel issued an award denying Woolley's grievance on July 15, 2002.
Woolley challenged the merits of the arbitration panel's decision through a writ of certiorari. Univ. of Minn. v. Woolley, 659 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. June 17, 2003). This court discharged the writ, holding that (1) phase III of the grievance procedure was a quasi-judicial decision reviewable under writ of certiorari and (2) the phase IV arbitration was reviewable only under the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) and was not reviewable by writ of certiorari. Id. at 309.
Woolley then brought an action in district court, alleging that respondents Panek, Cottingham-Zierdt, and Sweitzer had defamed him. His complaint identifies alleged defamatory statements made within the context of the sexual-harassment complaint and discharge proceedings, including: (1) Panek's accusations that Woolley engaged in unwanted sexual contact, (2) Panek's oral and written statements to Cottingham-Zierdt; (2) statements made by Cottingham-Zierdt and Sweitzer during the grievance process; and (3) the reports of Cottingham-Zierdt and Sweitzer to the EOAA.
Respondents moved to dismiss and, in the alternative, moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) the defamation claim was barred by collateral estoppel; (3) the respondents have absolute immunity; and (4) Woolley waived the right to bring this claim by signing the arbitration agreement. Woolley moved for leave to amend his complaint. The district court (1) granted respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Minn. R. Civ.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|