For my employment law class we were assigned Meintsma v. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc.

This case arises out of a “birthday spanking” given to appellant Jeremy Meintsma by five co-employees with a two-by-four fashioned into a paddle at his place of employment, Loram Maintenance of Way, on May 1, 2001.

Meintsma sued Loram and the co-employees individually, alleging claims of assault and battery, aiding and abetting assault and battery, respondeat superior, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and constructive discharge, as well as a claim for punitive damages.

According to Meintsma, the birthday spanking resulted in injuries to his buttocks, wrists, and elbow. Loram and the employees moved for summary judgment, arguing that Meintsma’s exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).

Apparently this “spanking” was more in the nature of a birthday-beatdown:

Some members of Loram’s management were aware of the spanking practice, and a manager participated in at least one spanking. Indeed, according to Meintsma, sometime before his spanking he approached a supervisor and asked what would happen “when these guys tr[y] to get me on my birthday if I defend myself.” Meintsma also claims that on the day he was spanked he approached a supervisor and indicated that he did not want to be spanked.

Meintsma’s spanking occurred a few days after his birthday when a group of his co-employees grabbed him from behind, wrestled him off his stool and onto the concrete floor, and then spanked him with a wooden paddle fashioned from a two-by-four. The manner and number of times Meintsma was spanked is disputed. According to Meintsma, after the spanking, he spit blood on the floor, got up and shook hands with the individuals who spanked him, went to the washroom, and cleaned up with the help of one of the co-employees.

That evening Meintsma went to the emergency room. There, the doctor found that Meintsma had contusions to his back, abrasions to his left arm, muscle spasms in his lower back, and a superficial cut on his left wrist. Upon discharge, Meintsma was given pain medication and told not to go to work for the rest of the week. The emergency room doctor reported the incident to the Wright County Sheriff. Meintsma also reported the incident to the police. Ultimately, the individuals who participated in the birthday spanking were charged with fifth-degree assault and disorderly conduct. They eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and received a stay of imposition of sentence for one year.

Meintsma v. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc., 684 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2004) a review of the case is on Findlaw.

Termination of parental rights cases have the most horrifying fact patterns.¹

In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.K.B. and M.A.R., Parents. ²

On April 4, 2006, before the birth of C.C.R. and D.B., Isanti County Family Services (ICFS) received a report regarding C.R., born November 22, 2004, and D.T.R., born May 14, 2002, stating that the children’s home was “filthy,” that syringes and small baggies commonly used to package drugs were present in the home, and that mother had been heard asking others to obtain Vicodin for her.

ICFS conducted a welfare check of the home and observed that the inside of the home was littered with dirty dishes, old food, sharp knives within the children’s reach, chemicals, tools, and animal feces. D.T.R. was playing in the yard, which was “cluttered with broken glass, chemicals, car parts, and other garbage.”

D.T.R.’s mattress was “extremely dirty” and had no linens other than a blanket. A significant amount of animal feces was in the room. ICFS informed father, who was the only parent home at that time, that D.T.R. would be removed from the home due to the hazards observed, and that appellants must also give C.R. to ICFS.

When appellants turned over custody of C.R., she was afflicted with a sinus infection, a double-ear infection, and a possible throat infection.

² The full case is here.

My goodness.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill¹

Appellant Robert Arthur Litzau challenges the district court order committing him as mentally ill…

Appellant is currently 66 years old. In 1999, he was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. As a result, he is required to register as a predatory offender.

In June of 2003, appellant was charged with possessing an incendiary device and making terroristic threats after he threatened to “blow up” a residence and “kill as many police officers as possible.”

Read the rest of this entry »