 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strand v. Interlachen Country Club6/25/2002
Appellants, all former employees, sued respondent country club for age discrimination and related claims based on the failure to rehire appellants after a layoff during a remodeling project. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of respondent, dismissing appellants' complaint, denied appellants' post-trial motions, and awarded costs to respondent. Appellants contend they were deprived of a fair trial and were deprived of their right to a jury trial. They challenge the conclusion that they failed to establish their disparate impact, disparate treatment, and promissory estoppel claims. Finally, they challenge the award of costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS
In May of 1997, respondent Interlachen Country Club began laying off its employees in preparation for a structural remodel of the club house. During the meetings that preceded the layoffs, Interlachen managers assured employees that no one was being terminated. Those receiving health benefits would continue to receive them until the remodeling project was completed and the employees were recalled to work.
Appellants were all employees of Interlachen prior to May 1997. Most of the nine appellants were laid off in May and the last one was laid off in November. Vivian Strand, currently age 64, had worked for Interlachen almost 40 years, having lived in the girls' dormitory in the early days. Doris Wasti, age 69, had worked for Interlachen for 30 years. Leo Boschee, age 64, had worked for Interlachen for 31 years. Arla Kroger, age 67, Jim Osmonson, age 47, and Kathleen Weiss, age 50, had each worked there for about 20 years. Brenda Swanson-Eisinger, age 51, Martha Moroz, age 51, and Nikolai Nikolov, age 44, had each worked there for approximately 10 years. None of the appellants was rehired after the reopening of Interlachen.
When Interlachen commenced the rehiring process, it did not contact appellants, but placed general advertisements for the new positions. Interlachen adopted the requirement that all prospective employees, including laid-off employees, must contact Interlachen and submit an application before they could be considered for hiring. But appellants contend that Interlachen did not inform them of this requirement (except appellants Wasti and Swenson-Eisinger and then only after these two had filed discrimination charges, as discussed below). Interlachen did contact some younger laid-off employees, but claimed it did so only for laid-off employees who stayed in continuous contact during the lay-off period.
Appellants filed discrimination charges against Interlachen with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and received notice from the MDHR of their right to sue. Appellants then brought this suit, for age discrimination and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363.03 (2000) and the Minnesota Age Discrimination Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.81 (2000), and for promissory estoppel. Appellants initially waived their right to a jury trial, but later attempted to withdraw their waiver. The district court denied appellant's request to withdraw their waiver and the matter was tried to the court. The court found that appellants failed to establish disparate impact or disparate treatment, and that they failed to show that promissory estoppel applied. The district court dismissed all claims.
Appellants filed a motion for a new trial, arguing they were deprived of a fair trial due to trial irregularities and they were deprived of their right to a jury trial. The district court denied appellants' motion for a new trial and awarded respondents $14,202.80 for costs and disbursements. Appellants filed this appeal challengin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|