*1 restrictions, we, turn, ben what are greatly from the restrictions that
efit
placed These restrictions on others. part
“properly treated as of the burden citizenship.”
common
Keystone, at 1245 U.S.
(citations omitted) Laun- (quoting Kimball States, 1, 5,
dry
Co. United
(1949)).
instant ordinance category: public pre- it serves a harm
same and, purpose implemented,
vention advantageous to likely
it will be all involved. taking
Accordingly, we see no here.
Reversed.
Robert HASNUDEEN
Hines, Appellants, CORPORATION, Respondent.
ONAN
No. CX-94-2106.
Supreme Court Minnesota.
Aug.
556 Corporation upon the district court’s plaintiffs
determination
had failed to
sustain their ultimate
persuasion
burden of
discharge
employment
their
from
discriminatory.
decision, majori-
In split
ty
appeals’ panel
of the court of
held that the
applied
improperly
trial court had
the third
step
three-part
of the
test
in
enunciated
Douglas
Green,
McDonnell
v.
411
Corp.
U.S.
(1973)
93 S.Ct.
investigatory
internally appointed
committee
ultimately
determined to
plaintiffs
both
company
violation of a
physical
policy against
fighting
Hasnu-
OPINION
lying during
investigation
deen alone for
COYNE, Justice.
any-physical
when he denied
confrontation
granted
petition
with Hines.
We
of defendant Onan
Corporation
further
review of a decisiоn
examining
plaintiffs’
discrimination
appeals
pur-
of the court of
for the limited
claims asserted under the Minnesota Human
pose
clarifying
the relationship between
Act,
Rights
the trial court conducted the
Hunter,
this court’s
in Anderson v.
three-part
Douglas
McDonnell
analysis, con-
Keith,
Co.,
&
Marshall
cluding, first,
have sus-
(Minn.1988)
pronouncement
of the
tained their
establishing
prima
burden of
Supreme
Mary’s
United States
St.
discrimination; second,
facie case of
that the
Hicks,
Ctr.
Honor
v.
509 U.S.
113 defendant sustained the shifted burden of
2742, 2751-52,
(1993)
“did indeed work atmo- this record indicates that there is sphere,” although “[p]laintiffs may but the trial court —should have —not potential have had the ‘hostile asserted it. claim,” environment’ is no there evidence Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the suggest record to that the dеfendant was appeals and reinstate the alleged or notified otherwise aware entered for defendant. plaintiffs’ conduct of the coworkers or that Reversed and reinstated. any anyone of Onan’s in au- thority plaintiffs. discriminated PAGE, (concurring part, Justice dissent- crediting Even deplorable the evidence part). *4 conduct, showing no made part discrimination of the defendant. Because it is not to this court’s role substi- tute its for that of trial court Moreover, denying plain- in his order it and because cannot be said with absolute findings tiffs’ motion for amended or a new certainty that the trial court its dis- abused trial, directly the trial court addressed the did, making I cretion it do not plaintiffs’ post-trial they assertion that had disagree analysis regarding with the court’s alleged a claim based on a hostile envi- work Hasnudeen’s Hines’ claims. I ronment: however, separately, write to discuss the However, throughout the real issue brought claims of by harassment parties actually trial —the one which the and Hines. argued litigated and whether defen- —was wrongful In to addition the claims of termi- discharged dant Onan plaintiffs for im- reprisal, nation and Hasnudeen and Hines themselves, proper reasons. Plaintiffs allege complaint in the that Hasnudeen was the first sentence their written final subject to harassment at Onan because of his argument, stated that the “were race, color, origin and national in violation of unlawfully discharged by Corpora- Onan Rights Minnesota Human Act that (‘Onan/Defendant’) on account of their subject Hines was to harassment at Onan [Emphasis by race and association.” because of her association with a of a court.] race, color, origin different and national say— The court went toon Rights violation of the Minnesota Human plaintiffs lost their [B]ecause They allege Act. also that because Onan’s discriminatory discharge, they appear now acts, they subject intentional were to severe asserting to be that had also claims anguish suffering. Although mental work hostile environment. We cannot al- specifically found that Hаsnudeen low to their re-eharaeterize racially- and Hines “did indeed theory. claims and assert a now charged atmosphere,” inexpli- the trial court cably failed resolve harassment As this court has stated on more one than and, confining claims its the dis- occasion, litigants appeal are bound on claims, charge ordered that Hasnudeen and theory, improvident, however erroneous nothing Hines “shall recover from defendant actually E.g., on which the action was tried. Corporation on their claims.” Because 91, McGroarty, v. Pomush 285 N.W.2d 93 I duty believe that the trial court had the (Minn.1979); Gillen Commissioner Tax claims, decide the respectfully harassment I ation, 525, (1975); 305 Minn. 232 894 part dissent from of the court’s decision Carlson-LaVine, John Co. v. W. Thomas which reinstates the entered for Inc., 29, (1971); Minn. 291 189 197 Onan. would remand the trial court for Adams, State 251 Minn. 89 N.W.2d resolution harassment claims. denied, cert. 3 spite L.Ed.2d Like the court we In of its refusal to rule on then- claims, can departing discern no from harassment trial court found long-established principle. commonly Hasnudeen’s eoworkers referred just sparked f—.” good This remark derogatory names and that “was to him were made derogatory racial comments that led to Hasnudeen’s and altercatiоn fact and Hines that Hasnudeen about Although Hasnudeen and dating Hasnudeen is each other. While were why Hines Hines had told Onan and is East Indian Guyana a native of upset and about other become so descent, regarded him an his eoworkers them, things allega- being said these about of his dark com- African American because According investigated. tions were not They plexion. to him with racial referred Hinеs, supervisor responded one to her Bob,” “Midnight,” “Nigger epithets, such as by telling she claims of harassment her that Nigger,” “Black addi- Bob.” “Sand quitting should consider she did not feel aware that after coworkers became right place was the her. The Hines, who is Hasnudeen was half trial court commented “Onan’s American, they began to make racial- Native investigated probably should have those sors ly relationship. comments about the offensive disciplined employees rumors who example, For Hasnudeen testified one saying things.” him, squaw?” coworker asked “How. if he had “ever been to a and another asked trial court stated that Hasnu- While the pow-wow squaw.” with the Hasnudeen as- “may potential Hines have had the *5 deen and that comments meant in a serted both were claim,” a the ‘hostile work environment’ two fеmale sense. Hines testified that sexual that and court concluded Hasnudeen Guyanese her men coworkers warned nothing.” Hines “shall recover The “try encouraged to her to beat women and the court refused to consider harassment boy.” a nice Another coworker find white claims, stating that claim before us is for “the guys “that that he once told Hines the discriminatory discharge, not hostile work asking shipping him if with in original.) in Fur- (Emphasis environment.” the snot out [Hines] was still f— ther, brought Hines when Hasnudeen and referred to Hines nigger.” Other coworkers or, “nigger lover” and commented as motion for amended alternative- in “going to find herself trouble Hines was ly, on had new trial the basis that stuff, nigger.” with going out and hostile environment in addi- claims of a Onan, half-sister, who also worked discriminatory claims of dis- harassed her that coworkers even testified at- сharge, trial court accused them of relationship and would “ask because tempting recast claims and assert niggers family if I if it runs in the and do me “the theory, stating that real issue upset frequently Hines became too.” par- throughout one which the the trial —the and, on one occa- racially offensive comments actually litigated argued and ties —was sion, crying hard that she had leave so discharged рlain- whether defendant Onan alleged reported Hines harass- work. in (Emphasis improper reasons.” tiffs Hasnudeen, the lead worker her ment original.) reported shift, he and claims that Hasnudeen times to other problem several summary disposition The trial court’s sors, allegations were never investi- but astounding. Courts the harassment claims is gated. pleadings liberally, particu construe Further, Hines that some coworkers told Gregg, larly rights L.K. v. in civil cases. making derogatory com- Hasnudeen was (Minn.1988). Here, 819-820 Hines confronted about her. When ments complaint expressly alleges harassment: Hasnudeen, making he the statements denied severally jointly and dis- That Defendants stop. it would told her that and against Robert Hasnu- criminated Plaintiff derogato- just “was found that it race, national color and deen because his plaintiff upset Hines ry comment engaged harass- origin in continual and had become of the incident.” Hines night ment, subsequently terminat- reprisals and told that Hasnu- a eoworker her upset when race, because of his ed was to him Robert that all she deen had remarked origin Onan, rogatories color and national violation of to Hasnudeen and Hines § 368.03 Subds. 1 and 7.1 during and the direct and cross-examination trial,2
of Hasnudeen and Hines at well as as during testimony of several witnesses. jointly severally That Defendants dis- testimony criminated Plaintiff The trial court heard extensive Hines harassment, engaged reprisals regarding epithets commonly the racial used subsequently terminated her because of in reference to Hasnudeen and the person her association with of a different offensive comments made about relation- race, origin сolor and national and that ship with Hines. The trial court credited harassment, said continual reprisals concluded, testimony previously subsequent termination are violation of indicated, that Hasnudeen and Hines “did 7. M.S.A. 363.03 Subd. racially-charged indeed work in a atmo- Nevertheless, sphere.” the trial court denied knew or relief, apparently on the should have known that Hasnudeen alleging sufficiently Hines were harаssment claims harassment had not been emphasized during addition to their claims of represents dis- trial. This an Beyond charge. complaint, allega- overly approach rights formalistic to human explored claims, particularly tions of harassment were in inter- in a bench trial where the 363.03, provisions “engaged The relevant of Minn.Stat. reprisals in harassment or against plaintiff Tracy subds. 1 and read as follows: Hines because of her race, person association with a of different 363.03 UNFAIR DISCRIMINATORY PRAC- (em- origin” (Interrogatory color or national TICES. added)); phasis Employment. Except Subdivision 1. when "Tracy Hines was terminated because of her occupational qualifica- based on a bona fide race, association with a of a different employment practice: it is an unfair *6 color, 6). origin" (Interrogatory оr national answering interrogatories regarding (2) race, color, harassment, employer, allegations For an because of of Hasnudeen and Hines creed, sex, religion, origin, many national described marital of the incidents of harassment to status, assistance, regard public they status with which testified at trial. trial, commission, membership activity responded At or in a Onan local these claims in orientation, part by disability, age, attempting sexual to show that or Onan was not notified or otherwise aware of the harassment. cross-examination, ques- On counsel for Onan (c) against person to discriminate with re- any tioned reported Hines about whether she of tenure, terms, spect hiring, compensation, supervisor comments to a other conditions, facilities, upgrading, privileges or of than Hasnudeen аnd whether she was aware that employment. procedure employee there was a outlined in the reporting Similarly, handbook for harassment. Reprisals. questioned Subd. 7. It is an counsel for Onan unfair discrim- Hasnudeen on * * * inatory practice any employer cross-examination about to in- whether he was aware procedure tentionally engage any reprisal specified against any еmployee hand- reporting person book on person: harassment and because that discrimina- whether, when the he com- plained to about the offensive comments (2) group Associated with a of respond, did not he contacted the EEOC coordi- persons who are disabled or who are of [sic] employee nator in accordance with the hand- race, color, creed, religion, sexual or- Testimony book. was also elicited from ientation, origin. or national regarding complaints sors at Onan how of harassment were handled and how information conveyed employees reporting was about served, example, 2. For and both Hasnu- harassment. answered, separate interrogato- deen and Hines allegations Complaint, In addition to the in the regarding ries their claims that: Hines, interrogatories Onan’s to Hasnudeen and trial, “engaged testimony parties' continual harassment and adduced at reprisals plaintiff race, Robert Hasnudeen be- Joint Statement of the Case and 1 of origin” Judge May Findings cause of his color and national Donald J. Venne’s Fact, added)); (Interrogatory (emphasis Conclusions of Law and Order reinstat- "Robert Hasnudeen was terminated because оf Hasnudeen's and Hines’ cause of action after race, order, origin” (Interroga- color and discovery national dismissal for violation of a make 3); tory specific reference to the harassment claims. remarks were epithets offensive racial environment and the hostile work egregious, ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE that led to closely tied to the incident COMPANY, Respondent, Even Hasnudeen’s must pled, and
fail, and Hines WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL the trial court found extent COMPANY, INSURANCE racially-charged atmosphere, proved Petitioner, Appellant. They deserved their claims harassment. resolved the trial to have those claims No. C2-95-490. court. by the outcome of deeply troubled
I am Supreme Court Minnesota. racially- aof ease. Credited claims this Aug. are left unre- charged work environment of a trial court’s narrow view solved because present- be overlapping claims should how pled, relief was
ed at trial. Harassment for,3 presented, defens-
prayed evidence was offered, findings were made.
es not address the
That the trial court did and, in of these claims is indefensible
merits view, in communi-
my perception fosters the state, found across this
ties of color Supreme Task Force
Minnesota System, in the
Racial Bias Judicial
system them. is flawed and stacked Ro- report task force former Justice
In that said, are the E. who stewards salie Wahl “We justice system people fail the it cannot failed them here.
belongs to.” We have
Therefore, respectfully dissent from the court, decision, which, like the trial
court’s *7 the harassment claims.
dismisses
TOMLJANOVICH, (concurring in Justice
part, dissenting part). Page. join
I in the dissent of Justice
GARDEBRING, (concurring in Justice part).
part, dissenting in Page. join in the dissent of Justice attorney's fees WHEREFORE, costs and 4. reasonable pray for the For follow- 3. Plaintiffs bringing this necessity ing: associated with previous posi- action. of their For reinstatement range. deems salary other relief as this at their former 5. For such tions and damages compensatory in- lost 2. For appropriate. come, rights. pension and insurance anguish compensation mental 3. For Fifty suffering in Thousand and excess of ($50,000.00). Dollars No/100