In the past, injuries occurring at employer-sponsored recreational programs and sponsored social events were most often viewed as not arising out of and in the course and scope of employment under Minnesota Statute 176.021, subd. 9, unless the employee was ordered or assigned to participate in the program. Recently the Minnesota Supreme Court came down with another opinion on this issue that makes it more difficult for employers to successfully utilize this defense.
In the case of Lindsay v. Minneapolis Pub. Scho. Dist., the employee was a middle school teacher who injured her knee while playing basketball with students during an after-school basketball practice approximately 30 minutes after she finished working. Primary liability was denied based upon the argument that the injury occurred at an employer-sponsored recreational program, so it was not compensable under Minn. Stat. 176.021, subd. 9.
At the administrative hearing, the compensation judge found the injury compensable, and “that the exclusion under Minnesota Statutes section 176.021, subdivision 9 (2024), for “[i]njuries incurred while participating in voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer,” did not apply.” Lindsay v. Minneapolis Pub. Sch. Dist. (SSD1), A25-0193, 2025 WL 2970083, at *1 (Minn. Oct. 22, 2025). This decision was appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA). The WCCA affirmed this decision, and it was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The Minnesota Supreme Court went through a detailed analysis of the language used in Minnesota Statute 176.021, subd. 9, which states:
“Employer responsibility for wellness programs. 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.”
The Court recounted that it had previously examined the meaning of “voluntary” in the case of Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., 875 N.W.2d 289, 296 (Minn. 2016) where it was defined as “[d]one or undertaken of one’s own free will or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.” However, the Court had not previously interpreted the phrase “‘voluntary recreational programs” sponsored by the employer.” The court went through the process for statutory interpretation including looking at the intent of the legislature when the statute is ambiguous.
The Employer and Insurer argued that the statute does not contain any language requiring that the program be for the benefit of employees, and that the component terms of the phrase “voluntary recreational program sponsored by the employer” show it does not have a requirement that the program benefit the employee.
The Employee argued that the statute should be looked at as a whole and not through its component parts. They focused on the fact the head note for the section was “Employer responsibility for wellness programs” and argued this made it clear that the exclusion only referred to programs with the goal of improving an employee’s health and well-being. They also argued that the list of examples provided in the subdivision only includes “health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics” for employers and employees, and it did not apply to programs for students.
The Court went through an analysis of the word “recreational” under various dictionaries, and concluded that they supported the Employee’s interpretation of the statute. Next, they looked at the term “wellness programs” and determined the word “wellness” implies activities that support and benefit a person’s well-being. Lastly the Court examined the word “voluntary” which had been defined in previous caselaw to mean “[d]one or undertaken of one’s own free will or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.” Shire, 875 N.W.2d at 296. The Court ultimately concluded that “a voluntary employer-sponsored recreational program under section 176.021, subdivision 9, is a program for the benefit of employees.”
Take away: If an employee is injured while participating in a voluntary recreational program sponsored by the employer, in order to deny liability under this section, the program must be for the employee’s benefit. If it is not for the employee’s benefit, then it would not fall under this exception to compensability.