Employee-Benefit Only: Minnesota Supreme Court Narrows Recreational Program Exclusion and Clarifies “Reasonably Incidental” Employment Activities

Introduction

In Erin Lindsay v. Minneapolis Public School District (SSD1), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed two recurring fault lines in workers’ compensation law: (1) when an after-hours injury at the workplace is “in the course of” employment, and (2) the proper scope of the statutory exclusion for injuries sustained during “voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer.” The Respondent, Erin Lindsay, a middle school math teacher at Sullivan STEAM Magnet, ruptured her ACL while playing basketball with students during an after-school practice. She claimed workers’ compensation benefits. The self-insured employer denied liability, contending the injury neither occurred in the course of her employment nor was compensable because it arose during a voluntary recreational program under Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9.

A compensation judge awarded benefits; the Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals (WCCA) affirmed. On further review, the Minnesota Supreme Court (Gaïtas, J.) affirmed the WCCA and, in the process, articulated two consequential rules:

An injury is “in the course of” employment where, on undisputed facts, it occurs at the workplace, within a reasonable time after the workday, and during activities reasonably incidental to employment—here, relationship-building with students expressly encouraged by the school.
The statutory exclusion in § 176.021, subd. 9 for “voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer” applies only to employer programs designed for the benefit of employees (i.e., employee wellness, morale, or social/athletic programs), not to student-centered activities.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court held:

Time/place/circumstances: Lindsay’s ACL tear at approximately 4:00 p.m.—about 30 minutes after her Thursday workday—and on school premises occurred within a reasonable period beyond working hours. The activity (playing in student basketball practice) was reasonably incidental to her job because Sullivan’s instructional philosophy and evaluation system expressly prioritized building student relationships, and administrators encouraged participation in student activities to that end.
Recreational program exclusion narrowed: Section 176.021, subd. 9 excludes injuries occurring during voluntary employer-sponsored recreational programs only when those programs are for employee recreation or wellness. Using ordinary meaning, statutory context (examples: “health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics”), the associated-words canon, and the original legislative headnote (“Employer responsibility for wellness programs”), the Court limited the exclusion to employee-benefit programs. Student athletic practice was therefore not such a program.
Standard of review: With undisputed facts, whether an injury occurs “in the course of” employment is a legal question subject to de novo review.

Result: Affirmed; the employee’s injury is compensable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Dykhoff v. Xcel Energy (Minn. 2013): Reaffirmed that compensability requires both “arising out of” and “in the course of” prongs. Here, only the “course of” prong was disputed; “arising out of” was left undisturbed from the compensation judge’s finding.
Hohlt v. University of Minnesota (Minn. 2017): Clarified “in the course of” as covering services to the employer and a reasonable time beyond work when engaged in activities reasonably incidental to employment, and treated compensability as a legal question on undisputed facts. The Court leaned on Hohlt’s formulation and de novo posture.
Gibberd v. Control Data Corp. (Minn. 1988): Endorsed the time/place/circumstances framework for “course of employment.” The Court used this triad to structure its analysis.
Satack v. State, Dep’t of Public Safety (Minn. 1978) and Blattner v. Loyal Order of Moose (Minn. 1962): Established that ingress/egress injuries within roughly 45 minutes before or one hour after work can be within a reasonable temporal window. Those decisions anchored the Court’s conclusion that 30 minutes after the workday is “reasonable.”
Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (treatise): The Court expressly adopted the treatise’s framework that an act outside an employee’s regular duties undertaken in good faith to advance the employer’s interests can be within the “course of employment,” and that activities “related to the employment” include those advancing the employer’s interests directly or indirectly.
Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. (Minn. 2016): Defined “voluntary” (no constraint or expectation of reward) in the context of § 176.021, subd. 9, and signaled that the exclusion does not apply where an employee must forfeit pay or leave to opt out. The Court reused Shire’s voluntariness definition to reinforce that the recreational-programs exclusion concerns optional employee-benefit programs.
Profit v. HRT Holdings (Minn. 2023) and State v. Henderson (Minn. 2018): Restated statutory-interpretation methodology—plain meaning first; if ambiguity exists, use canons of construction to ascertain legislative intent. The Court used canons to cabin the scope of “recreational programs.”
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. v. Mensing (Minn. 2010): Recognized that headnotes can inform meaning if they were part of the original legislative process. The Court relied on the original headnote (“Employer responsibility for wellness programs”) to confirm employee-centered scope.
In re SIRS Appeal by Nobility Home Health Care, Inc. (Minn. 2024): Applied the associated-words canon (noscitur a sociis). The Court used this canon to construe “athletic events” in § 176.021, subd. 9 as employee recreation akin to “parties” and “picnics.”
Roller-Dick v. CentraCare Health System (Minn. 2018): Confirmed de novo review on undisputed facts for “arises out of” questions; the Court cited the same approach for “course of” in this case.
WCCA: Hansen v. Wyatt Ready Mix (1990): Although not binding, the WCCA long ago read “recreational programs” to mean employer-sponsored initiatives promoting employee health, social well-being, and goodwill. The Supreme Court’s opinion harmonizes with this view.

Legal Reasoning

1) “In the course of employment” — time, place, and circumstances

The Court applied the classic time/place/circumstances framework:

Place: The injury occurred at the school—Lindsay’s workplace—favoring coverage.
Time: The injury occurred roughly 30 minutes after her Thursday workday. Drawing on Satack and Blattner, the Court deemed this a “reasonable period beyond working hours.”
Circumstances: The pivotal question was whether the basketball activity was “reasonably incidental to” her teaching role. The Court:
- Adopted Larson’s formulation: activities advancing the employer’s interests—even outside formal duties—can be incidental.
- Emphasized Sullivan’s educational model and evaluation standards that expressly value building student relationships and encourage teachers to use extracurriculars as relationship “entry points.”
- Noted Lindsay’s contract contemplated occasional work beyond duty time to work with students and families.
- Found Lindsay joined practice specifically to strengthen student relationships—an objective aligned with school policy and evaluation criteria—and with the coach’s permission.

The employer’s contrary argument—that playing basketball was “attenuated” from math teaching—was rejected as too narrow. Because Sullivan tied relationship-building to teaching effectiveness and evaluation, the activity advanced the employer’s interests and thus was reasonably incidental to employment.

2) The recreational program exclusion — employee-benefit programs only

Section 176.021, subd. 9 excludes coverage for injuries incurred while participating in “voluntary recreational programs sponsored by the employer,” listing “health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics,” unless participation was ordered or assigned. The Court concluded:

Ordinary meaning: Dictionaries define “recreation” as refreshment after work, implying a benefit to workers. Thus, “recreational programs” naturally means programs for employees’ benefit.
Context and associated words canon: The listed examples—“health promotion programs, athletic events, parties, and picnics”—are paradigmatic employee morale/wellness activities. By noscitur a sociis, “athletic events” refers to employee recreational athletics (e.g., a company softball team), not student sports.
Headnote: The Legislature’s original headnote to subd. 9—“Employer responsibility for wellness programs”—was part of the enacting session law and supports an employee-wellness focus.
“Voluntary”: Reaffirming Shire, “voluntary” denotes absence of compulsion or reward-based pressure, consistent with optional employee-benefit programming.

Applying this reading, the after-school student basketball practice was not a “recreational program” for employees; it was a student-centered activity. Consequently, the exclusion did not bar Lindsay’s claim.

Impact

Immediate effects

Educators and student-facing professionals: When employer policy, pedagogy, or evaluation systems integrate relationship-building or extracurricular engagement, injuries sustained in such activities—even after hours and outside strict duties—are likelier to be deemed “in the course of employment,” particularly on premises and within a reasonable time window.
Public and private employers: The recreational-programs exclusion can no longer be invoked to defeat claims arising from participation in non-employee programs, such as student activities, community outreach events, or client-centered functions. The exclusion is confined to employee wellness/morale/social/athletic events.
Risk management and insurance: Self-insured entities and carriers should recalibrate claims-handling for after-hours, on-premises injuries tied to employer-endorsed engagement with students/clients. Policies, training, and documentation that encourage such engagement may support coverage.

Longer-term doctrinal significance

Clarifies “reasonably incidental”: The Court’s express adoption of Larson’s “advance the employer’s interests” standard deepens Minnesota law beyond ingress/egress cases. Expect broader coverage for employer-aligned activities outside formal duties, especially where policies or evaluations favor them.
Refines statutory interpretation of § 176.021, subd. 9: Courts will ask whether the program is designed for employee benefit. Corporate 5Ks, employer softball leagues, yoga classes, holiday parties, and wellness challenges fit; student or client-centered events do not, even if employer-sponsored.
Headnotes can matter: When a headnote was part of the original enactment, it may carry interpretive weight—an important signal for statutory construction in Minnesota.
Standard of review: On undisputed facts, whether an injury occurs in the course of employment is a legal question reviewed de novo—a valuable point for appellate practitioners.

Practical guidance

For employers (especially schools):
- Be explicit: If relationship-building or extracurricular involvement is encouraged or evaluated, recognize the workers’ compensation implications.
- Coverage expectations: Disclaimers that “this is voluntary” are insufficient where the activity advances employer interests; to invoke subd. 9, the event must be an employee-benefit program and voluntary in the Shire sense.
- Assignment exception: If an employee is ordered or assigned to participate in a recreational program, the statutory exclusion never applies.
For employees:
- Document purpose: When engaging in after-hours activities, note how the activity aligns with employer policies or objectives—this can be critical to “reasonable incidental” analysis.
For litigators and adjusters:
- Frame the “purpose” inquiry: Gather evidence on employer policies, evaluation criteria, and custom that show the activity advanced employer interests.
- Recreational exclusion: Vet whether the program was designed for employees’ wellness or morale; if not, the exclusion likely does not apply.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Arising out of” vs. “In the course of”:
- Arising out of: Causation—did the job expose the worker to the risk that caused the injury?
- In the course of: Context—did the injury occur at a time, place, and under circumstances sufficiently connected to employment?
“Reasonably incidental to employment”: Activities that, even if not core job duties, advance the employer’s goals (e.g., teacher attending a student activity to build rapport when the school values that as part of effective instruction).
Recreational program exclusion (subd. 9): Bars claims for injuries during voluntary employer-sponsored programs designed for employee wellness/morale/social benefit (e.g., company picnic). It does not bar claims from student/client-centered activities.
Noscitur a sociis (associated-words canon): A word in a list draws meaning from its neighbors; “athletic events” in a list with “parties” and “picnics” means employee recreational athletics, not all athletics.
Headnotes: Normally nonbinding, but if included in the original session law, they can help show legislative intent.
De novo review on undisputed facts: Appellate courts decide legal questions anew without deference when facts aren’t disputed.

Open Questions and Boundaries

Dual-purpose or mixed-benefit events: If a program benefits both employees and nonemployees, how will courts draw the line? The opinion emphasizes programs “for the benefit of employees,” suggesting that mixed motives could trigger fact-specific analysis.
Off-premises activities: The case involved an on-premises injury. Similar reasoning likely applies off-premises where employer interests are advanced, but time/place considerations may be more contested.
Reasonable time window: The Court reaffirmed that 30–60 minutes around a shift is reasonable in typical situations; markedly longer gaps may invite dispute.
Purely personal recreation: If an employee engages in an activity on premises that neither advances employer interests nor aligns with employer policies, coverage remains doubtful.

Conclusion

Erin Lindsay v. Minneapolis Public School District meaningfully clarifies Minnesota workers’ compensation law on two fronts. First, it fortifies the “course of employment” analysis for after-hours injuries by embracing Larson’s employer-interest standard for “reasonably incidental” activities and reaffirming that a 30-minute post-shift window on the employer’s premises lies within a reasonable time. Second, it narrows the scope of Minn. Stat. § 176.021, subd. 9 by holding that the recreational-programs exclusion applies only to voluntary programs designed for the benefit of employees—wellness, morale, social, and recreational events—not to student or client-centered activities. The decision protects educators and similarly situated employees who engage in employer-encouraged extracurricular relationship-building, and it gives employers and insurers a clearer map for risk allocation: “recreation” in the statute means employee recreation.