Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Hennepin County, 441 N.W.2d 106.

48 citing documents.

James Johanning, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-13 (Minn. 1989) (noting that regarded-as claim alleging major life activity of working requires showing that one was regarded as pr ecluded from more than a single job), superseded by statute on other grounds, 1989 Minn. Laws ch. 280, § 1, at 1100.
Preeti Kaur Rajpal v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Preeti Kaur Rajpal v. Regents of the University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., 5 (relying on interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act to construe the MHRA).
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 700 N.W.2d 548 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In support of the narrow interpretation that limits “major life activities” to the “ability to obtain and retain employment,” the district court and MSU rely on two cases: and Hayes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minn., Inc., 21 F.Supp.2d 960 (D.Minn.1998).
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
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 632 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2001
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).
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 545 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 545 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. 532 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
Fahey v. Avnet, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Fahey v. Avnet, Inc. 525 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Co. 511 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Co. 511 N.W.2d 482 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Independent School District No. 624 509 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Independent School District No. 624 509 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
110 n. 1 (Minn.1989) (disparate treatment analysis unnecessary where treatment was undisputedly based on physical impairment).
Capitano v. State 875 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Elbers v. Growe 502 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Williams v. Curtis 501 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Williams v. Curtis 501 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Leaf v. Freeman 499 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Leaf v. Freeman 499 N.W.2d 54 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. O'Connor & Hannan 494 N.W.2d 261 Minn. 1992
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Clausen 491 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Beaulieu v. Clausen 491 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
is “materially limited” in any “major life activities.” In determining whether an individual is limited in any “major life activities,” the supreme court found “helpful” a definition which includes “ ‘functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’ ” (quoting 45 C.F.R.
State, Department of Human Rights v. Hibbing Taconite Co. 482 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State, Department of Human Rights v. Hibbing Taconite Co. 482 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
See State by Cooper v. Hennepin *507 County, , 110 n. 1 (Minn. 1989).
Anderson v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Anderson v. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. 480 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Miller v. Centennial State Bank 472 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Miller v. Centennial State Bank 472 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, Inc. 465 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Because we have determined that respondent has presented a direct prima facie case of discrimination, we need not consider evidence of indirect discrimination, , 110 n. 1 (Minn.1989).
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Gunnufson v. Onan Corp. 450 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Rutherford v. County of Kandiyohi 449 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rutherford v. County of Kandiyohi 449 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
1123, 1127 , 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987)
Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc. 447 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1989
Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc. 447 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1989
(declining to expand the definition of the phrase “disabled person” to cover an unusual disability discrimination case).
Bauer v. Republic Airlines, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Bauer v. Republic Airlines, Inc. 442 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
The definition of “disability”