Spratt v. MDU Resources Group, Inc.
2011 ND 94
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Spratt was hired in 2001 as VP of HR for Montana-Dakota Utilities (MDU), a division of MDU Resources Group.
- In 2007 Spratt claims he was told by MDU executives they were 'out to get' him and he was 'too old' and earned too much.
- In March 2008 David Goodin replaced Imsdahl as president of Montana-Dakota Utilities.
- On April 2, 2008, Spratt was informed his HR position was eliminated in a company reorganization and was terminated effective April 3, 2008 at age 59.
- MDU characterizes the termination as part of a broader HR realignment; 200 positions were eventually eliminated; other divisions also reduced staff.
- Spratt sued under the North Dakota Human Rights Act alleging age discrimination; district court granted summary judgment for MDU.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct evidence of discrimination raised? | Spratt asserts direct statements show age bias. | No direct-evidence theory was raised below; not preserved for appeal. | Not considered on appeal; direct-evidence theory not preserved. |
| Application of the modified McDonnell Douglas framework? | Spratt relies on the modified framework for indirect evidence. | Framework applies to indirect evidence only and was properly used. | Applicable only to indirect evidence; used appropriately. |
| Did Spratt raise a genuine issue that others not in the protected class were treated more favorably? | Spratt was the only one over 40 terminated while younger employees remained. | Age alone and isolated termination do not prove discrimination without more evidence. | No genuine issue; termination of one over-40 employee with others of various ages retained does not establish disparate treatment. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on the record? | Record shows potential discrimination evidence. | Record fails to show a prima facie case under the Act. | Summary judgment appropriate; Spratt failed to raise a triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schweigert v. Provident Life Ins. Co., 503 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1993) (establishes the modified McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (direct evidence eliminates need for McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1985) (standard for direct evidence in discrimination cases)
- Schumacher v. North Dakota Hosp. Ass’n, 528 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 1995) (principles of burden shifting in ND discrimination cases)
- Jacob v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 693 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 2005) (prima facie elements for ND age discrimination)
- Heng v. Rotech Med. Corp., 688 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 2004) (explains modified McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Engel v. Montana Dakota Utils., 595 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1999) (case law on burden-shifting in ND discrimination claims)
- Beeter v. Sawyer Disposal LLC, 771 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 2009) (preservation and development of issues on appeal)
- Great Western Bank v. Willmar Poultry Co., 780 N.W.2d 437 (N.D. 2010) (summary judgment appellate standard and inference rules)
- Koehler v. County of Grand Forks, 658 N.W.2d 741 (N.D. 2003) (elements of prima facie case under North Dakota HRA)
- Riemers v. City of Grand Forks, 723 N.W.2d 518 (N.D. 2006) (evidence and burden related to summary judgment analysis)