# Geraci v. Eckankar

> Court of Appeals of Minnesota · January 17, 1995 · 526 N.W.2d 391

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657663

## Case

- **Full name:** Carol A. GERACI, Appellant, v. ECKANKAR, a California Nonprofit Corporation, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Minnesota
- **Decided:** January 17, 1995
- **Citations:** 526 N.W.2d 391; 66 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1622; 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 75; 1995 WL 13688
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Randall
- **Judges:** Randall, Schumacher, Mulally
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657663

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that not all opinions are protected by the First Amendment, and “that only statements about matters of public concern not capable of being proven true or false and statements that cannot be interpreted reasonably as stating facts …
- affirming that statements that the plaintiff "had poisoned the board," was "out of control," "a bad influence," "emotional," and "not a team player" could not reasonably be interpreted as stating facts
- stating “[generally, a court is required to apply the law that is in effect at the time it renders its decision”

## Opinion text

RANDALL, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result, but conclude that Carol Geraci did not even make a prima facie showing of employment discrimination under *402 McDonnell-Douglas. The undisputed facts show only that the employer had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. I find no issues of material fact supporting a prima facie case.
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must present proof of discriminatory motive. Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 720 (Minn.1986) (“A prima facie case may be established by direct evidence of discriminatory motive”). Where the plaintiff cannot produce such direct evidence, the plaintiff may still present a prima facie case by showing that: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected group; (2) plaintiff sought and qualified for opportunities that the employer made available to others; (3) despite being qualified, plaintiff was denied these opportunities; and (4) after plaintiff was denied, the opportunities remained available or were given to other persons with plaintiffs qualifications. Id. For wage discrimination claims, the plaintiff must show that the employer paid different wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work on jobs requiring equal skills, effort, and responsibility. Kolstad v. Fairway Foods, Inc., 457 N.W.2d 728, 734 (Minn.App.1990).
Here, the record shows Tillery, who was given opportunities Geraci was not, was qualified in ways that Geraci was not. Tillery had approximately eleven years experience in computer systems analysis, programming mainframe computers, supervising employees, and computer network administration. When Geraci was hired, she had recently graduated from college, had some experience in computer design and programming, but had no experience in computer network administration. After Geraci’s termination, her male replacement was given some responsibilities formerly performed by Tillery and Geraci, and paid substantially less than Ger-aci because he had even less experience.
Geraci had to show that she sought and was qualified for opportunities that the employer was making available to others. See Sigurdson, 386 N.W.2d at 720 . Tillery had experience maintaining computer networks and was qualified to administer the employer’s computer network here. Geraci did not have experience administering computer networks. Further, Tillery’s and Geraci’s duties involved different skills and responsibilities. See Kolstad, 457 N.W.2d at 734 . Tillery’s additional responsibilities and slightly higher income were not surprising in view of his superior experience.
Rather than supporting a prima facie case of employment discrimination, the facts present exactly the type of factors employers and managers regularly and legitimately use in delegating authority and in setting employee salaries.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9657663. Public record. Not legal advice.