Cited by

See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

See Harkins v. Grant Park Ass’n, (rejecting an interpretation of a statute “contrary to the principle” that courts “attempt to avoid interpretations that would render a word or phrase superfluous, void, or insignificant”); McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (rejecting an interpretation of statute, in part, because it “would make the word ‘unless’ meaningless, an outcome normally disfavored in statutory interpretation”); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024) (“Every law shall be construed, if possible, t

2 In early 2015, McBee began 2 For a more complete recitation of the background facts of this case, see our opinion in McBee’s first appeal before us. See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., – 27 (Minn. 2019).

2 In early 2015, McBee began 2 For a more complete recitation of the background facts of this case, see our opinion in McBee’s first appeal before us. See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., – 27 (Minn. 2019).

may not be established by unverified and conclusory allegations or metaphysical doubt about the facts .” McBee v. Teams Industries, Inc., (quotations omitted).

6 To preclude summary judgment, “[a] genuine issue of material fact ‘must be established by substantial evidence.’” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (quoting DLH, -70 (Minn. 1997)).

“When legislative intent is clear from the statute’s plain and unambiguous language,” appellate courts “interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to 24 other principles of statutory interpretation.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (quotation omitted).

See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (stating that a genuine issue of material fact may not be established by “unverified and conclusory allegations” (quotation omitted)); (stating that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rely on the pleadings’ bare allegat

The 6 Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that “essential functions” generally means “the fundamental job duties of the employment position.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., -31 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

Team Indus., Inc., d 222, 230 (Minn. 2019) (“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, the nonmoving party must present facts showing that there is a genuine issue as to a 6 material fact.”) .

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

But a genuine issue of material fact “must be established by substantial evidence” and ma y not be shown based on “unverified and conclusory allegations or metaphysical doubt about the facts.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (quotations omitted).

A request for an accommodation “need not contain any magic words” but it “must be sufficient to convey to the employer that the employee is requesting that his disability be accommodated.” 2 This is so notwithstanding McBee v. Team Industries, Inc., in which the supreme court declined to refer to federal caselaw because the federal caselaw was based not on the ADA itself but on a federal regulation relating to the ADA, 29 C.F.R.

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. , (quotation omitted).

We also “view the evid ence in the light mo st favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, the nonmoving party must present facts showing that there is a genuine issue as to a material fact.” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., (citing DLH, Inc. v. Russ , 566 N.W .2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997) ).

The supreme court recently applied this principle in another case arising under the MHRA, stating, “The Minnesota Human Rights Act is not ambiguous on this point, and so we reject the request of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights to defer to its interpretation of the Act to reach the opposite result .” McBee v. Team Industries, Inc. , n.4 (Minn. 2019).

See McBee v. Team Indus., Inc. , (stating that a genuine issue of material fact may not be established by “unverified and conclusory allegations” (quotation omitted)).

The critical ques tion is “whether any present 4 Although “a federal interpretation of state law is not binding on our court,” McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., n.3 (Minn. 2019), we find the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation to be an accurate reflection of our holdings in Sigurdson v. Isanti County , and Brotherhood of Railway & St eamship Clerks v. State

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc., d 222, 230 (Minn. 2019).

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.

McBee v. Team Indus., Inc.