Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McNabb v. Cub Foods, 352 N.W.2d 378.

39 citing documents.

, A17-2080, A17-2081, 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).
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
Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Nichols v. Reliant Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. 720 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook 695 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook 695 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Davis v. Hennepin County 559 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(response options include disseminating anti-harassment policy, transferring employees, or taking disciplinary action).
Haskins v. Choice Auto Rental, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Haskins v. Choice Auto Rental, Inc. 558 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(“notice of harassment to management is essential to a claim for benefits”).
P.L. v. Aubert 527 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
P.L. v. Aubert 527 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(Human Rights Act imposes a duty on the employer to take “prompt and appropriate action” when it knows or should know of an employee’s sexual harassment in the work place); See, (knowledge imputed to the employer where sexual harassment committed by a supervisor); McNabb, d at 384 (“An employer must act to prevent and correct harassment when it becomes aware of the problem”).
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hanke v. Safari Hair Adventure 512 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Giuliani v. Stuart Corp. 512 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Hanke v. Safari Hair Adventure 512 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“[Njotice of harassment to management is essential to a claim for'[unemployment] benefits.” (citing Larson, d at 669 ).
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc. 509 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The district court, while imputing knowledge of Huyink’s acts with Fore, found that all of the other incidents did not rise “to the level of sexual harassment, the knowledge of which should be imputed to Health Dimensions.” a manager’s knowledge that an employee was being harassed by a co-employee was imputed to the employer.
Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Gillson v. State Department of Natural Resources 492 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
“The failure of management to timely discipline employees is strong evidence of acquiescence in discriminatory practices.”
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc. 483 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
stated that the liability inquiry should focus on whether the employer knew or should have known about the harassment:
Weaver v. Minnesota Valley Laboratories, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Weaver v. Minnesota Valley Laboratories, Inc. 470 N.W.2d 131 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
ruled that knowledge of an immediate supervisor that an employee was being harassed by fellow employees would be imputed to the employer, that case did not address the issue of such imputation when the supervisor was the harasser.
Heaser v. Lerch, Bates & Associates Inc. 467 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Heaser v. Lerch, Bates & Associates Inc. 467 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Prescott v. Moorhead State University 457 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Prescott v. Moorhead State University 457 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. 430 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Wetterhahn v. Kimm Co. 430 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow 400 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tru-Stone Corp. v. Gutzkow 400 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The supreme court has stated that a manager’s knowledge should be imputed to an employer where the manager “performs basically a ‘first level supervisory and managerial function.’ ”
Klink v. Ramsey County Ex Rel. Zacharias 397 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Klink v. Ramsey County Ex Rel. Zacharias 397 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The trial court found, and we agree, that the facts here are distinct from the facts in Continental Can and two subsequent cases, and Tretter v. Liquipak International, Inc.
Clark v. K-MART STORE NO. 3059 372 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Clark v. K-MART STORE NO. 3059 372 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thus, : [T]he statute requires that two elements be satisfied: first, that the employer knew or should have known of the existence of harassment; second, that the employer failed, despite that knowledge, to take timely and appropriate action.
Tretter v. Liquipak International, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Tretter v. Liquipak International, Inc. 356 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1984