Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Continental Can Co. Ex Rel. Wilson v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241.

88 citing documents.

Distinguished Aaron Olson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
6—are distinguishable from this matter.
Barbara Henry, Minn. 2023
See generally Cont’l Can C/D-3 (stating that the court has applied “[p]rinciples developed in Title VII cases by federal courts” when construing the Minnesota Human Rights Act), superseded by statute, Act of Mar.
Assata Kenneh, Minn. 2020
Compare Cont’l Can Co. v. State , with Meritor Sav.
Bridgette A. Allan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Cont’l Can Co. v. State , (citing Howard v. Nat’l Cash Register Co. , 388 F. Supp. 603 (S.D.
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 832 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2013
the conditions of employment.”
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
superseded by statute, Act of March 23, 1982, ch. 619, §§ 2-3, 1982 Minn. Laws 1508 , 1511, as recognized in Frieler v. Carlson Mktg.
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
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
J.M. v. Minnesota District Council of the Assemblies of God 658 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
J.M. v. Minnesota District Council of the Assemblies of God 658 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
We have recognized that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, Continental Can Co., -49 (Minn.1980), but we have not recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual orientation discrimination.
Zimmerman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 605 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2000
Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc. 597 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc. 597 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Co., 118 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.1997)
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(noting under sex discrimination claim MHRA does not impose duty on employer to maintain pristine working environment); see also Thompson, 845 F.Supp.
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)).
Cummings v. Koehnen 568 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1997
Cummings v. Koehnen 568 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1997
Appellants cite Continental Can Co., for the proposition that sexual harassment must have a disparate effect on one gender to be actionable under the MHRA.
Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 564 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Diez v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 564 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
“A constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns in order to escape intolerable working conditions caused by illegal discrimination.” Continental Can Co.
Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
The supreme court has stated that the MHRA “does not impose a duty on the employer to maintain a pristine work environment.” Continental Can Co.
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
41(3) (1996); Continental Can Co., -50 (Minn.1980).
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Oslin v. State 543 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Pribil v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 533 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Pribil v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis 533 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“A constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns in order to escape intolerable working conditions caused by illegal discrimination.”
P.L. v. Aubert 527 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
P.L. v. Aubert 527 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(Human Rights Act imposes a duty on the employer to take “prompt and appropriate action” when it knows or should know of an employee’s sexual harassment in the work place); See, (knowledge imputed to the employer where sexual harassment commit
Fahey v. Avnet, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Fahey v. Avnet, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
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
2399, 2404-05 , 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); Continental Can Co., -49 (Minn.1980) (sexual harassment includes such conduct having the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment); Harris v. Forklift Sys., — U.S. —,—, 114 S.Ct.
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bougie v. Sibley Manor, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Bougie v. Sibley Manor, Inc. 504 N.W.2d 493 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
where the court concluded that an employer committed an unfair employment practice by failing to take timely and appropriate action when notified by an employee of verbal and physical sexual harassment.
Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
While * * * an employer is [not] automatically and vicariously liable for all discriminatory acts of its agents or supervisors, * * * an employer has an affirmative duty to investigate complaints of sexual harassment and deal appropriately with the offending personnel.” (quoting Munford v. James T. Barnes & Co., 441 F.Supp.
Farrington v. City of Richfield 488 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Farrington v. City of Richfield 488 N.W.2d 13 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by