Cited by

See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -46 (Minn. 1983) (noting that although timing of discharge alone is not enough to satisfy a plaintiff’s “ultimate burden of persuasion,” it may “raise an inference of retaliatory motive”).

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, a party must typically show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the job from which she was discharged; (3) she was discharged; and (4) her employer hired “a nonmember of the protected class to do the same work.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

Res., -72 (Minn. 2022); see also Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983) (quotation omitted).

We have “frequently relied on the Restatement of Torts to guide our development of tort law in areas that we have not previously had an opportunity to address.” Larson, d at 306; see, e.g., Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., –39 (Minn. 1983) (adopting the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as formulated by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965)).

-65 (Minn. 2003) (“We have cautioned that intentional infliction of emotional distress is sharply limited to cases involving particularly egregious facts and that a high threshold standard of proof is required to submit the claim to a jury.” (quotations omitted)); see also Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., (“[E]xtreme and outrageous [conduct] must be so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community.” (quotations omitted)).

Randall v. No. Milk Prods., Inc., (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973)); see also Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc. (holding that McDonnell Douglas framework is applicable to retaliation claims in Minnesota).

A “causal connection may be demonstrated indirectly by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as a showing that the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

14 distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.” (quoting Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983)).

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., n.11 (Minn. 1983).

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983).

Hosp., (alteration in original) (quoting Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., n.11 (Minn. 1983)).

Hubbard v. United Press Int ’l, Inc., -39 (Minn. 1983).

Goins , d at 724; Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -42 (Minn. 1983).

To prove a prima-facie case of reprisal, “an employee must establish: (1) statutorily- protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., d 428, 444 (Minn. 1983).

(quoting Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., ).

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., –41 n.11 (Minn. 1983).

In order to prove a prima facie case, “ an employee must establish: (1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc. , -45 (Minn. 1983); (stating that close proximity between an employee engaging in protected conduct and a termination decision supports an i nference of reprisal), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).

The continuing violations doctrine is an equitable doctrine that can toll the statute of limitations where a pattern of discriminatory condu ct “constitute[s] a sufficiently integrated pattern to form, in effect, a single discriminatory act.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., n.11 (Minn. 1983).

“[E]xtreme and outrageous [conduct] must be so atrocious that it passes the boundaries of decency and is utterly intolerable to the civilized community.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., d 428, 439 (Minn. 1983) (quotations omitted).

See Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., d 428, 438-39 (Minn. 1983).

v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 257, 101 S. Ct. 498, 503 (1980)); see also Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc. , n.11 (Minn. 1983) (“The continuing violation doctrine has been applied by courts to toll the statute of limitations in employment discrimination actions when the discriminatory acts of an employer over a period of time indicate a systematic repetition of the same policy and const itute a sufficiently integra

The causal connection may be established “by evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as a showing that the employer ha s actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., (applying McDonnell Douglas analysis to reprisal claims).

See Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , , 444 (Minn. 1983) (applying McDonnell Douglas test in review of summary-judgment decision in retaliatory-discharge claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act); Grundtner v. Univ.

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.

The doctrine is most commonly applied in employment discrimination cases “ when the discriminatory acts of an employer over a period of time indicate a systematic repetition of the same policy and constitute a sufficiently integrated pattern to form, in effect, a single discriminatory act.” Hubbard v. United Press Int ’l, Inc., n.11 (Minn. 1983) ; see Davies v. W. Pub l’g Co. , (stating that continuing - violation doctrine is most commonly applied in discrimination cases because those types 9 of

Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , , 445 (Minn. 1983).

Hubbard v. United Press Int ’l, Inc., , 438-39 (Minn. 1983).

Osland’s participation in protected activity, by itself, could support an inference of causation if “the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’ l, Inc., (emphasis added).

A causal connection between an employee’s statutorily protected conduct and discharge “may be demonstrated indirectly by evidence of ci rcumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as a showing that the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the [discharge] follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Intern., Inc.

Courts apply the continuing -violation doctrines to toll the statute of limitations in discrimination actions when discriminatory acts of a party “over a period of time indicate a systematic repetition of the same policy and const itute a 9 sufficiently integrated pattern to form, in effect, a single discriminatory act.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., n.11 (Minn. 1983).

Hubbard v. United Press Int ’l, Inc.

Hubbard v. United Press Int’l , Inc.

See, e.g., Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., (employer retaliation).

However, the continuing violations doctrine creates an exception for acts occurring prior to the limitations period when “the discriminatory acts of an employer over a period of time indicate a systematic repetition of the same policy and constitute a sufficiently integrated pattern to form, in effect, a single discriminatory act.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc., -41 n.11 (Minn. 1983).

This may be shown when “the employer has actual or imputed knowledge of the protected activity and the adverse employment action follows closely in time.” Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc.