explaining that the statutory allowance of attorney fees in the Minnesota Human Rights Act “was to encourage victims of discrimination to bring suit, particularly where the relief sought is not a large money judgment, and to make legal counsel available in these cases”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the statutory allowance of attorney fees in the Minnesota Human Rights Act “was to encourage victims of discrimination to bring suit, particularly where the relief sought is not a large money judgment, and to make legal counsel available in these cases”
- using federal law to define “major life activities” and recognizing that major life activities under federal regulations explicitly include “ ‘caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’ ” (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1680.2(1) (2003))
- holding that in claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act the trial court “must explicitly apply the three-step McDonnell Douglas analysis”
- explaining that direct evidence of discriminatory motive exists “where an employer announces he will not consider females for positions”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YETKA, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which reverses the award of attorney fees.
I dissent from that portion of the opinion which remands for specific findings under the McDonnell-Douglas analysis. At some point, litigation must come to an end. In this case, a remand will do the appellant no good because the result will be the same. The trial court did make specific findings even though it did not spell them out in the manner that this court might like to see. The Department of Human Rights found no discrimination nor did the trial court or the court of appeals. What purpose would be served by sending it back to require the trial court to redraft its findings all over again? We should affirm this case, but warn that all findings in future employment discrimination cases are to be clearly set forth according to the McDonnell-Douglas analysis.
I would affirm the court of appeals on the discrimination issue and reverse the award of attorney fees.