 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dahnke v. Hub City North Central2/13/2001
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of respondent employer in a discrimination and reprisal lawsuit. Appellant contends that there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment and argues that the district court's rulings were erroneous in several other respects. We reverse and remand the summary judgment as to the reprisal claim, but otherwise affirm the district court.
FACTS
Respondent Hub City matches customers who need freight transportation services with major carriers and negotiates the rates between the two. In 1983, respondent hired appellant and her husband, Ed Dahnke, to open an office in Minneapolis. Ed Dahnke was the vice president in charge of the Minneapolis office and appellant asserts that she was the general manager. Although it was undisputed appellant was designated general manager at times, she admitted she did not have authority to hire or fire employees, to set, change, or increase salaries, or to discipline employees.
In May 1996, respondent acquired American President Lines, a competitor in Minneapolis, in an attempt to bolster business at its Minneapolis office. Respondent's parent company hired Lionel Chinelly, who had previously worked for American President Lines, and respondent allowed him to use an office at its Minneapolis facility. Chinelly also did some work and received some compensation from respondent. Respondent did not hire Chinelly directly until May 1998. At the time of the acquisition, respondent removed appellant's responsibilities for negotiating rates and instead gave her customer services duties. Respondent also removed appellant's title as general manager.
In December 1996, the original owner sold his interest in Hub City and, effective January 1, 1997, a new president, James Gaw, was named. Gaw personally interviewed the employees at Hub City's Minneapolis office in late January. When he met with appellant, she told him she was being discriminated against, citing the fact Chinelly had the same duties she had, yet was being paid twice as much and received more vacation. Gaw described her as combative and later learned that two key employees threatened to leave if she remained. Gaw decided to reorganize the Minneapolis office and terminated appellant, effective February 18, 1997.
In July 1997, Gaw hired a 62-year-old man as the general manager and a 51-year-old man in the sales area. In October 1997, eight months after appellant's termination, a 30-year-old woman was hired to perform the customer service duties.
Appellant filed a charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), which determined probable cause existed to believe that an unfair discriminatory practice had been committed. Appellant then sued respondent Hub City. The district court granted summary judgment in respondent's favor and Dorothy Dahnke appeals.
DECISION
When reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred as a matter of law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View, 518 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn. 1994).
I.
We first address the issue as to the evidence properly considered in a summary judgment motion. Such evidence must be admissible at trial. Murphy v. Country House, Inc., 307 Minn. 344, 349, 240 N.W.2d 507, 511 (1976); Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. The district court declined to consider findings made by the MDHR in its probable cause determinatio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|