 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grosberg v. Listening Ear Crisis Center Project Inc.3/2/1999
Affirmed
AMUNDSON, Judge
Appellant Patricia Grosberg appeals from summary judgment in favor of respondent Listening Ear Crisis Center Project, Inc. (LECC). Grosberg alleges that she was unlawfully discharged on the basis of two protected classifications: (1) sexual preference; and (2) disability. Grosberg asserts that LECC's proffered reasons for her termination were merely pretext for discrimination. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent LECC is an organization that works with victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes. Grosberg became aware of the organization while undergoing treatment for drug abuse required as a result of a drug-related criminal conviction. After Grosberg underwent court-mandated chemical dependency treatment with therapist Maryann Rollie, a member of the LECC board of directors, Rollie recommended that Grosberg volunteer for LECC. Grosberg volunteered with LECC for a short while and was hired for a full-time position with the organization in December 1993.
At the time she was hired, Grosberg believed the LECC board members were aware of her criminal history and chemical dependency. Grosberg also believed the board members were aware of her sexual orientation, but acknowledged that she never felt that the board members treated her any differently after learning of her sexual orientation or history of chemical dependency.
On November 27, 1995, the board hired Jodi Ritter as LECC's new executive director. Soon after, conflicts arose between Ritter and Grosberg. Ritter testified that Grosberg was often argumentative with her and that, during Ritter's first five months as director, she spent much of her time dealing with personnel problems caused by Grosberg's "blow ups." In fact, Ritter documented discord as early as January 1996.
On April 29, 1996, Jennie Hervern, a board member, terminated Grosberg. The termination occurred after Ritter called and informed Hervern that she was resigning because she could no longer deal with Grosberg. Hervern determined that in order to keep Ritter, Grosberg had to be discharged. In fact, Hervern testified that, although Grosberg consistently received good reviews on her performance as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, she had considered terminating Grosberg on prior occasions because of her aggressive behavior, which made other staff members uncomfortable or even fearful. Finally, although Ritter acknowledged that Grosberg did an acceptable job with most aspects of her work, she testified that Grosberg refused to comply with Ritter's policy of requiring LECC employees to follow up on victims.
After being terminated, Grosberg brought this action against LECC, alleging unlawful discrimination, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. LECC moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment on all claims and dismissed the suit. Grosberg only sought review of the summary judgment dismissing her discrimination claim.
DECISION
On appeal from summary judgment, we determine: "(1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact; and (2) whether the lower court erred in its application of the law." Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995). While we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the non-movant must produce specific facts that create an issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986); Ruud v. Great Plains Supply, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Minn. 1995). In order to establish a genuine issue of material fact, a party may not rely on the mere existence of a scintilla of e
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|