Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717.

75 citing documents.

LaMont v. Independent School District 728 814 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2012
(citing Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999)).
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 796 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Hansen v. Robert Half International, Inc. 796 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
[T]he plaintiff must then put forward sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered explanation was a pretext for discrimination.”
Bahr v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY 788 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2010
Bahr v. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY 788 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2010
Paul Pioneer Press, , 724 n. 3 (Minn.2001); Dietrich v. Canadian Pac.
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Edwards v. HOPKINS PLAZA LTD. PARTNERSHIP 783 N.W.2d 171 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-23 , 724 n. 3 (Minn.2001); see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct.
GEIST-MILLER v. Mitchell 783 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1 In order to demonstrate that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment, a plaintiff will have to show the harassment was “so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the [plaintiffs] employment and create *203 an abusive working environment.” (alteration in original) (quoting Meritor Sav.
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Friend v. Gopher Co., Inc. 771 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
see also Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., Inc., (holding that protected trait must be “a substantial causative factor”).
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. 751 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2008
The court of appeals, held that the 2001 amendment did not eliminate the requirement that a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment by a supervisor must prove his or her employer knew or should have known about the sexual harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate action.
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
(citing Carter v. Chrysler, 173 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir.1999)).
Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 656 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 656 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
ANALYSIS We review a grant of summary judgment to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.”
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Pine Island Farmers Coop v. Erstad & Riemer, P.A. 649 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 2002
Our review of a summary judgment is limited to “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.” Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc.
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists 649 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2002
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 643 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Christensen v. Milbank Insurance Co. 643 N.W.2d 639 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that when the district court considers a motion for summary judgment it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant).