noting that the MHRA specifically prohibits certain conduct in particular contexts, and declining to read a cause of action for discrimination for a person not a party to a contract, where the MHRA does not specifically provide one
How later courts described this case
- noting that the MHRA specifically prohibits certain conduct in particular contexts, and declining to read a cause of action for discrimination for a person not a party to a contract, where the MHRA does not specifically provide one
- recognizing that appellate courts must accept allegations of non-moving' party as true when reviewing district court’s decision on motion to dismiss
- stating that courts construe statutory language words and phrases “according to their most natural and obvious usage” (quotation omitted)
- affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim of action by an individual who had no right to sue under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, discussing the issue both in terms of “statutory standing” and as a question of whether the statute “provide[s] a cause of action”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.