Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Danz v. Jones, 263 N.W.2d 395.

112 citing documents.

Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Technologies & Services, Inc. 832 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Technologies & Services, Inc. 832 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
("Thus, upon a prima facie showing by the plaintiff, there is a shift, but not in the ultimate burden of proof.
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. 794 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A constructive discharge is a “resignation which is caused by illegal discrimination.” , 403 n. 4 (Minn.1978).
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Taylor v. LSI CORP. OF AMERICA 781 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Taylor v. LSI CORP. OF AMERICA 781 N.W.2d 912 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
to analyze disparate treatment claims brought under the MHRA.
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 616 N.W.2d 732 Minn. 2000
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
§§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (1999); -99 (Minn.1978) (noting chapter 363 was modeled after Title VII and looking to Title VII cases for guidance in interpreting chapter 363).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-99 (Minn.1978); , 741 n. 2 (Minn.App.1986) (“Minnesota courts will use principles developed under Title VII-court decisions to construct [the MHRA].”) (citation omitted), revieiv denied (Minn. Jan.
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
See (Title VII cases and principles are instructive and have been applied to the MHRA) (-99 (Minn.1978)).
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1996
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. RSJ, Inc. 552 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 1996
Kepler v. Kordel, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kepler v. Kordel, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kalia v. St. Cloud State University 539 N.W.2d 828 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(adopting the three-step analysis established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct.
Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
(adopting the test enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct.
Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Ward v. Employee Development Corp. 516 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Co. 511 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Co. 511 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(first adopting McDonnell Douglas test).
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-99 (Minn.1978), is applicable here: 1.
Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Butler v. Leadens Investigations & Security, Inc. 503 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
This same test has been used to analyze discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) -99 (Minn.1978).
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 483 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1992
(requiring trial courts to explicitly apply McDonnell Douglas analysis in employment discrimination cases); (approving McDonnell Douglas analysis).
Miller v. Centennial State Bank 472 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Miller v. Centennial State Bank 472 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the three-step analysis for employment discrimination claims which the United States Supreme Court enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct.
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Feges v. Perkins Restaurants, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-22 (Minn.1986); (analysis first adopted).
LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the discrimination analysis applied by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03 , 93 S.Ct.
Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc. 459 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See, Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
1817 , 1824 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Danz v. Jones , , 399 (Minn. 1978).
Kolstad v. Fairway Foods, Inc. 457 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Kolstad v. Fairway Foods, Inc. 457 N.W.2d 728 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., -24 (Minn.1988)
Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. 449 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989