Clausnitzer v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co.
2012 ND 172
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Clausnitzer, manager of maintenance at Tesoro's Mandan refinery, was assessed for driving a Tesoro vehicle after consuming Ativan and during a winter storm on March 24, 2009.
- He took a Tesoro vehicle to conduct a printer search and personal errands, visited his girlfriend, then returned to the refinery and was involved in a minor accident.
- A police officer cited him for careless driving; a breath test showed BAC 0.058%, above Tesoro's 0.04% company policy but below the 0.08% DUI threshold.
- Tesoro offered Clausnitzer retirement or termination after informing him of the test results and prior accident; Clausnitzer chose retirement.
- Clausnitzer filed a summary-judgment action for unlawful discrimination under North Dakota's Human Rights Act, but the district court granted summary judgment, concluding he failed to show membership in a protected class or that his off-duty conduct did not conflict with the employer's essential interests.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling Clausnitzer did not raise a genuine issue that his actions did not conflict with Tesoro's essential business-related interests, thus failing the protected-class requirement under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case for discrimination under HRA | Clausnitzer asserts protected off-duty activity. | Tesoro contends termination was for policy violation, not protected activity. | Dismissal affirmed; no prima facie protected-class showing. |
| Protected-class scope: off-premises lawful activity | Activity off employer's premises during nonworking hours is protected. | Policy violation linked to company property use, not protected activity. | Court did not need to resolve all sub-issues; focus on essential-interest conflict. |
| Conflict with essential business-related interests | Tesoro tolerates off-duty drinking, arguing no conflict. | Driving with BAC above policy harms property, image, and liability. | Clausnitzer failed to show no conflict; activity conflicted with essential interests; judgment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spratt v. MDU Res. Grp., Inc., 2011 ND 94 (ND 2011) (establishes prima facie framework under HRA)
- Jacob v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 2005 ND 56 (ND 2005) (defines prima facie elements for HRA discrimination)
- Fatland v. Quaker State Corp., 62 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 1995) (before 1993 amendments; discusses essential business-related interests)
- Hougum v. Valley Mem'l Homes, 1998 ND 24 (ND 1998) (explains legislative history and essential-business standard in HRA)
- Olson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285 (ND 1985) (off-duty conduct analysis distinguishing misconduct)