 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne v. MasterShield8/3/1999
Samuel Sando Wayne II brought an action against MasterShield, Inc. and Parkview Associates alleging, among other things, discrimination in violation of the real property and public accommodation provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subds. 2, 3 (1998). On appeal from summary judgment dismissing his discrimination claim, Wayne challenges the district court's Conclusion that: (1) the MHRA does not protect tenants' guests; and (2) Parkview Associates' residential apartment complex is not a public accommodation within the meaning of subdivision 3. We affirm.
FACTS
Parkview Associates owns and operates Parkview Apartments (Parkview), a residential apartment complex. Parkview's lease allows visitors on the premises "only in the company of a tenant." Parkview hired MasterShield, a private security company, to provide security and ensure compliance with the visitor rules. Erik Bergling and Greg Smith were MasterShield employees.
On Nov. 9, 1997, Samuel Sando Wayne II, a recent immigrant from Liberia, went to Parkview with his family to visit his mother-in-law. After being buzzed in, Wayne left the building unescorted to fetch a gift. In the parking lot, Smith stopped Wayne and accused him of violating Parkview's escort policy by entering the building without a tenant escort. Smith then took Wayne to the security office, where Bergling demanded identification. Bergling told Wayne to put his hands above his head and Wayne complied. He then shoved Wayne into a "holding cell" and struck Wayne's head against the wall, causing Wayne to suffer a deep cut above his left eye and to bleed profusely. During this altercation, Bergling told Wayne, "Welcome to America." Bergling admitted that he knew Wayne was an immigrant.
After he was released, Wayne returned to his mother-in-law's apartment. Smith and Bergling followed Wayne and demanded that Wayne leave the premises.
Wayne sued MasterShield and Parkview Associates, alleging various tort claims as well as violations of the MHRA. MasterShield and Parkview Associates moved for summary judgment, dismissing Wayne's discrimination claim under the MHRA. The district court granted MasterShield's and Parkview's motions, holding that: (1) the real property provision of the MHRA does not protect tenants' guests; and (2) Parkview Apartments is not a public accommodation within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3.
ISSUES
(a) Does the real property provision of Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 2(1) apply to guests at an apartment complex?
2. Is an apartment complex a public accommodation within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3(a)(1)?
ANALYSIS
When reviewing a summary judgment, the appellate court must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred as a matter of law. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997); State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). Because Wayne does not object to the district court's recitation of the facts, this case raises only questions of law.
I.
Wayne argues that the district court erred in concluding that Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 2(1) does not extend its protections to guests of tenants. The real property section of the Minnesota Human Rights Act provides:
It is an unfair discriminatory practice:
(1) For an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease any real property, or any agent of any of these: ( a) to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold f
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|