Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Giuliani v. Stuart Corp., 512 N.W.2d 589.

34 citing documents.

Daniel Engebretson v. Northern Tool and Equipment Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
exceed the amount of damages awarded.”
Ingrid Jorgensen, et al v. Aaron Jorgensen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But the district court found that none of the qualifying events occurred, including trust termination, and we review its factual findings underlying its statute-of-limitations conclusion for clear error
William M. Ross v. Dianne’s Custom Candles, LLC, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. , -67 (Minn. 1989).
A17-2081, A18-0015 John Doe 125 (A17-2078), John Doe 126, et al. (A17-2081), John Doe 123, et al. (A18-0015) … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. , Tretter v. Liquipak Int’l, Inc., see McNabb v. Cub Foods , (imputing supervisor’s knowledge of o ther employees’ harassment to employer).
Paul Allen Bray v. Starbucks Corporation, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The co ntinuing-violations doctrine is an exception to the MHRA’s one -year statute of limitations and applies when an unlawful discriminatory practice “manifests itself over time, rather than as a series of discrete acts.” Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. , d 589, 595 (Minn. App. 1994).
Indira Y. Junghare v. The Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Indira Y. Junghare v. The Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A., vs. Steven B. Curtis, et al, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
R. Wynn Kearney, Jr., M.D. v. The Orthopaedic and Fracture Clinic, P.A., vs. Steven B. Curtis, et al, … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, the continuing- violations doctrine creates an exception for an “unlawful employment practice [that] manifests itself over time, rather than as a series of discrete acts.” (quotation omitted).
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. 817 N.W.2d 189 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review After a bench trial, we give the district court’s findings great deference and will reverse “only if the result is clearly erroneous.”
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condominium Ass'n 783 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Development Group, LLC 776 N.W.2d 172 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gagliardi v. Ortho-Midwest, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Gagliardi v. Ortho-Midwest, Inc. 733 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Wenigar v. Johnson 712 N.W.2d 190 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kvidera v. Rotation Engineering & Manufacturing Co. 705 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-97 (Minn.App.1994) (noting that the legislature specifically provided for an award of attorney fees in enacting the Minnesota Human Rights Act because the cases often involve modest damages and the attorneys who prevail in discrimination cases serve an important public function).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-97 (Minn.App.1994) (recognizing that attorneys who prevail in discrimination cases “serve an important public function which accomplishes a social objective identified by the [MHRA] ”).
Davies v. West Publishing Co. 622 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Davies v. West Publishing Co. 622 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Washington County Sheriff v. JBI & Associates, Inc. 592 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Washington County Sheriff v. JBI & Associates, Inc. 592 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Johns v. Harborage I, Ltd. 585 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
In MHRA cases, the continuing violation doctrine acts as an exception to the MHRA statute of limitations and allows a complainant to hold an employer liable for a series of related acts of sexual harassment if “the unlawful employment practice manifests itself over time.” (quoting Lane v. Ground Round, Inc., 775 F.Supp.
Floyd v. Donahue 923 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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
(quoting Lane v. Ground Round, Inc., 775 F.Supp.