Cited by

“Under this framework, a plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination.” Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., (citation omitted).

As explained by the supreme court in Hanson, “[w]ithout direct evidence of retaliation,” analysis of whether summary judgment is appropriate on an MWA claim “proceeds according to the three-step framework of McDonnell Douglas.” Hanson, d at 374; cf. Hansen v. Robert Half Int ’l, Inc., (stating that discrimination claims “not involving direct evidence of discriminatory animus” are subject to the McDonnell Douglas framework).6 The Hanson court explained, “Direct evidence establishes that the emplo

“Under this framework, a plaintiff must first make out a prima facie case of discrimination.” Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

The State Patrol nevertheless urges reversal, relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decisions in Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc.

ove for a “more definite statement.” In sum, the Minnesota pleading standard “ ‘requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it,’ ” with a focus on the underlying “ ‘incident’ rather than on the specific facts of 8 the incident.” Walsh, d at 605 (quoting Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., –18 (Minn. 2012)).

Henry, d at 883; Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

at 500-01 (quoting Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012)).

Id.; see Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., , 915 (Minn. 2012) (reviewing construction of a statute de novo on appeal from summary judgment).

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. , –18 (Minn. 2012).

“To establish a prima facie case of disc riminatory discharge, an employee must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she was discharged; and (4) the employer assigned a nonmember of the protected class to do the same work.” Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc. , (citing Hubbard, d at 442).

at 604-05 (quoting Hansen v. Robert Half Int’ l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012)).

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012) (“Minnesota is a notice- pleading state that does not require absolute specificity in pleading, but rather requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.”).

at 604–05 (quoting Hansen v. Robert Half Int ’l, Inc., – 18 (Minn. 2012)).

See, e.g., Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l Inc. , d 906, 918 –20 (Minn. 2012) (explaining the burden -shifting framework for employment discrimination claims set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973)).

P. 8.01; see Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012) (holding that “Minnesota is a notice-pleading state that does not require absolute specificity in pleading, but rather requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.”).

See Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., (providing that claims under MHRA not involving direct evidence of discrimination are subject to McDonnell framework).

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc.

to find pretext or discrimination on temporal proximity alone and look for proximity in conjunction with other evidence.” Hansen v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., (quotation omitted) (affirming decision that termination occurring the day after employee returned from maternity leave because employee’s position had been eliminated did not violate MHRA), aff’d

Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012); see also Minn. R. Civ.

After all, Minnesota is a *605 notice-pleading state and “does not require absolute specificity in pleading, but rather requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.” Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn.2012).

“Minnesota is a notice-pleading state that does not require absolute specificity in pleading, but rather requires only information sufficient to fairly notify the opposing party of the claim against it.” Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., –18 (Minn. 2012); see also Home Ins.

of City of Brainerd, Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., -18 (Minn. 2012).