Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715.

212 citing documents.

Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 664 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
VanLandschoot v. Walsh 660 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
VanLandschoot v. Walsh 660 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
Kolton v. County of Anoka 645 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2002
(relying on interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in construing the definition of “disabled person” under the MHRA); (acknowledging application of interpretations of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 to interpret MHRA because of similarities between the statutes).
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
Goins v. West Group 635 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2001
Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Hamblin v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. 636 N.W.2d 150 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
In Minnesota, a plaintiff may sustain the burden to establish pretext “either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” (citation omitted).
Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc. 629 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Benassi v. Back & Neck Pain Clinic, Inc. 629 N.W.2d 475 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citation omitted); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 , 120 S.Ct.
LeVake v. Independent School District 656 625 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
LeVake v. Independent School District 656 625 N.W.2d 502 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(setting out standard for showing circumstantial evidence of employment discrimination).
Potter v. Ernst & Young, LLP 622 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Potter v. Ernst & Young, LLP 622 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Appellant must then present evidence that respondent’s non-discriminatory reason was pretextual, either by direct evidence that a discriminatory reason likely motivated respondent or indirect evidence “that [respondent’s] proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” (quotation omitted); review granted (Minn. April 25, 2000).
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The plaintiff may sustain this burden “ ‘either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.’ ” (citing Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 , 101 S.Ct.
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 588 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 588 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(noting that in analyzing cases under Minnesota Human Rights Act, principles developed in litigation of federal civil rights acts often apply due to substantial similarities).
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
Pullar v. Independent School District No. 701 582 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Pullar v. Independent School District No. 701 582 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
719 n. 1 (Minn.1986) (Sigurdson I).
Lang v. City of Maplewood 574 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lang v. City of Maplewood 574 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(interpreting MHRA with aid of federal case law).
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Costilla v. State 571 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(-20 (Minn.1986); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct.
Cummings v. Koehnen 568 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1997
Criticized Cummings v. Koehnen 568 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 1997
While we have looked in the past to federal cases interpreting Title VII for guidance in interpreting the MHRA because the statutes are similar in many respects, we decline to follow the federal rule here because the MHRA is not similar to Title VII in its treatment of sexual harassment.
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
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 552 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1996
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 552 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 1996
Kepler v. Kordel, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Kepler v. Kordel, Inc. 542 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 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
(citing Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., ).
Lipka v. MINN. SCHOOL EMPLOY. ASS'N. 537 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lipka v. MINN. SCHOOL EMPLOY. ASS'N. 537 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lipka v. Minnesota School Employees Ass'n, Local 1980 537 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Lipka v. Minnesota School Employees Ass'n, Local 1980 537 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
Bilal v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 537 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1995
A court may in its discretion award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant “upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith.” (quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 , 98 S.Ct.
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Phelps v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. 537 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 1995
Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
Dietrich v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. 536 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1995
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp. 531 N.W.2d 891 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(holding that in claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act the trial court “must explicitly apply the three-step McDonnell Douglas analysis”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by