*1 son, his ua, child thera- told Armendariz’s potential unfair probative value and another woman February that pist in light high, particularly prejudice was trailer the in the Armendariz been bolstering Agent had impermissible murder, by (2) testimony Wade night his of the testimony by Luttring’s reference year after the murder a a administering Abraham that experience polygraph tests. Fader; him 403; told she v. woman had Minn.R.Evid. State See cf night of murder (Minn.1984). Although Armendariz trailer the commit- and named others had admitted, and that she under the facts of this wrongly by murder, (3) testimony a not error. ted case the error was reversible рicked Fenney up hitch- who had witness Error is also asserted 5. morning of the hiking at 9:30 a.m. defense, permit not the trial court did Fenney of the murder to spoke murder that theory of that someone whose prior to which was dis- him at that time er had committed ot than defendant body. covery of the re der, Sack mu to cross-examine Steven transcript, however, reading A people toward garding knife threats made the first two items confirms per This court has other than victim. testimony Expert revealed that doubtful. tending to of evidence mitted the admission testimony unreliablе and con- Joshua’s guilt a murder case prove another’s testimony Abraham’s taminated. Wade the defendant where the issue is whether bias, by his own doubts about was tainted murder, proper a did fact commit the validity, lack of corroboration. must first be laid. foundation State against supported item the verdict third (Minn. Hawkins, 260 N.W.2d 158-59 showing Fenney by he knew of the 1977). body discover- murder even before did the desired cross-examination Where by the The defense did not ed authorities. incriminating acts Sack not relate its burden that the evidence would meet conceivable, against the victim and probably produce acquittal an or a verdict connecting the witness rational foundation Thus, to defendant. more favorable presence in the trailer to the was his crime its discretion in trial court did abuse night possession and his court that denying new trial. large have been the knife was too Affirmed. murder, the weapon used in the defense provide necessary failed foundation. refusing not err in
The trial court did regarding
permit the cross-examination
knife threats. Finally, claims the defendant denying
trial court erred new This newly evidence. based on discovered SIGURDSON, Renja Respondent, post conviction reviews denial a new trial under the abuse standard, examining the evidence discretion COUNTY, al., et ISANTI State, light out in Race v. test set Petitioners, Appellants. (1987) noting No. C2-88-1460. is on the defendant establish the burden by of the evi preponderance the facts Supreme of Minnesota. Court 590.04, required by dence as Minn.Stat. Nov. (1988). subd. 3 Examining the evidence as
whole, did not meet the test. the defense
True, three items new evidence were (1) hearsay testimony
presented: that Josh- *2 Beens, Lepak, Scott M. Stef-
Richard A. Anoka, appel- Munstenteiger, fen & lants. Park, Ltd., Singer, Louis
David A. St. respondent.
SIMONETT, Justice. This gen- case asks whether defendants’ der discrimination was a viola- tion so that the time filing complaint beyond prescribed was extended stat- ute of limitations. agree We that the doсtrine of law preclude case does consideration this issue that the discrimination was a continuing violation. We affirm. third protracted
This is the
in this
litigation.
pick up
story
our
appeal.1
son
There the
I,
appeals,
split
1. In
in a
decision,
review,
affirmed the trial court’s
further
reversed and
remanded for
Duane
April
deputy assessor
Johnson
part,
the trial court
appeals reversed
Dean
leaving
Becker and
quit,
Curtis
ruling
several dis-
one
only deputy assessors.
proven.
Boettcher as the
Si-
crimination claims had been
Dean
May
“chief
assessor”
County,
In this third When went 1979, con- praise has reversed the trial the union court, ruling county employees being nego- that claim is not tract for again remanding to the time-barred and In March 1980 the union contract tiated. damages, awarding executed, August trial court for the to retroactive County, Isanti Sigurdson study Pursuant to a commissioned granted the (Minn.App.1988). 910 We designated county, the union contract county’s petition for further review. three classifications in the assessоr’s assessor, office, namely, deputy property granted have to consider the review salary appraiser, and office clerical. The “continuing applies doctrine as it violation” higher deputy schedule for assessors was to the statute of limitations discrimina- property appraisers. Sigurdson than for gen- tion cases. or not there was Whether designated “property appraiser” un- a against Sigurdson Ms. der discrimination lump given der the union contract and longer Sigurdson no an issue. II decided payment cover her increasе as sum to grant did there was. We further re- property appraiser Septem- to retroactive consequently, appeal; in that view however, claimed, Sigurdson ber 1979. finding ruling II’s discrimina- Sigurdson that have to do she should been allowed promote plaintiff is the tion failure to 1976, appraising field from December I, Only of this case. See Part law infra. an qualified she was then and there was time-bar issue remains. To deal with opening. She also claimed she should have issue, identify un- this we first must and deputy been made a assessor. sought precise derstand to time-barred. be 661, 408 Sigurdson opening “an appeals ruled that 1976, court of spring
In the the Isanti 1976, April deputy assessor existed after office consisted of an assessor Assessor’s (Aaron Boettcher), qualified to fill as of Sigurdson was “deputy three asses- sors,” wrongful- 1976 and that she was of the December several “clerks.” One ly opportunity this fall of plaintiff Renja clerks who denied 2 remand, being noted aspired assessor. 1979.” On trial court judge's finding under a trial discrimination. The trial to reconsider Douglas analysis. point hotly disputed. See McDonnell evidence on County, (Minn.App.1985), N.W.2d 476 "if I was to work 363 rеmarked that remanded, (Minn. N.W.2d 715 reversed with one for three months out of the [a woman] 1986). day, year, every guess appreci I have wouldn't 1979, spring ated it much.” In the On remand the court reconsidered two fill assessor said he intended hire men to again ap- found The second no discrimination. appraisal work. the then two vacancies field peal these reconsidered these We had earlier characterized remarks findings of trial court. Sigurdson, "seemingly” discriminatory. hand, (Minn.1986). On the other appeals panel N.W.2d at 2. The found that had plaintiff was ex wrongfully therе was evidence that “an denied advancement because employee supervise.” gender, tremely Si difficult that it substituted salary, the court of had found the assessor with a assessor’s gender discrimination to exist “until the discrimination which was not cured in Sep- however, Sigurdson, fall of 1979.” did not by allowing Sigurdson tember 1979 to do complaint Department file her appraising field nor by pro- was it cured Rights long Human until October moting Sigurdson property appraiser after the 6-month limitations March 1980.4 363.06, expired.
had
See Minn.Stat. §
case,
culprit
The real
in this
it seems to
(1980),
subd.
since amеnded to increase
us,
county’s job
has been the
period
1 year.
limitation
Act of
or,
system
accurately,
more
the lack there-
April
ch.
1988 Minn.
§
suggestion
of. There is a
in the record
ruling
gives
Laws
922. It is this
supposed
that a
assessor was
appeal.
rise to this current
managerial
have some
supervisory
or
III,
In Sigurdson
us,
now before
duties, but,
fact,
this is not how the
judge
stated the trial
operated.
office
Both Curtis Becker and
*4
“misconstrued” the nature of the sex dis- Aaron Boettcher testified that
the title
crimination violation that it had found in “deputy assessor”
special signifi-
held no
prior appeal.
In gender ing, performed the same duties. The con- that, consisted of county’s pro- inescapable refusal clusion is as the court of Sigurdson mote position deputy concluded, to the Sigurdson doing I, gurdson $14,372. (Minn.App.1985). salary N.W.2d at 483 the same contract at a Yet Sigurdson See also Justice Yetka’s dissent herein. Becker and have shared the same event, noted, plaintiff the issue of whether duties since 1979. At date of trial in when Sigurdson years was denied assessing experience, advancement because of bias had 4 us, put Sigurdson county is promoted Deputy behind to rest in II. still had not her to Assessor. 3. The court of ruled that pay years judge prior entitled to 5.The trial back for the 2 to the made on what each filing complaint, pay person prior Sep- date of her hence in the assessor’s office did back 1979, but; tember October to Octоber view of the confusion in record, immediately understandably attempt Plaintiff was also to be reclassified did not job position deputy job Step to the assessor at the match titles with duties. Prior to March doing E there was no title level. for someone appraisal field work other than assessor. designated Property job descrip- a Class A After March there were no contract, Appraiser receiving distinguishing under the 1980 a tions assessor from a $11,016. result, salary county property appraiser. classified Curtis As a title Becker, just years assessing who hаd over 4 meant whatever the assessor chose to experience, Deputy as a Class D Assessor under make it mean. defense limitations the statute of asses- as the male the same work made trial, trial court never first salary schedule. The lower sors but need to court saw no ruling. The trial Sigurdson was county’s claim that it had found ruling because make qualified job classification was for a lower Mattson, too, Here, unlike noted, already discrimination.6 it is
pretextual; as we have
finally
II
conclud-
nor
Sigurd-
neither
case,
the law of this
established
after
lаwsuit. On remand
here,
ed the
son II and not reviewable
had the same case
son
gender motivated.
discrimination was
statute of
an unresolved
with
before
background that
against this factual
It is
i.e.,
of limi-
issue,
a statute
limitations
up the
issue.
we now take
time-bar
no “law of
there was
issue on which
tations
its
day
is entitled
the case.” The
I.
asserted, undecided defense
argues
Plaintiff
claim.
asserting the
precluded from
doctrine
limitations defense
II.
plaintiff presents
of the case. While
law
complaint
Sigurdson filed her
At the time
ground
argument as an “alternative”
Rights,
of Human
with thе Commissioner
affirmance,
really
it is
threshold is-
charge
“A
of an unfair
the statute read:
sue.
must be filed within
discriminatory practice
II appeals panel found
of the
six months after
the occurrence
gender discrimination in failure to advance
363.06, subd. 3
practice.” Minn.Stat. §
*5
job position
she
plaintiff to the
to which
ap-
do
(1980).
was allowed to
and remanded
assessment
was entitled
not,
praising in
1979.
did
September
She
damages.
argues
Plaintiff
this decision
however,
30,
charge until
file her
October
remand,
precluded
on
from
1980, over 6 months later.
entertaining
of limita-
defendant’s statute
us, however, the
critical
It seems to
more
defense. Not so.
tions
March
It was then that Si-
date is
applies
when the
Law of
case
job
wrongfully assigned the
gurdson was
appellate
legal
on
court has ruled
issue
appraiser.
property
While
proceedings
remanded for further
on
and
assessing
in the field
had been
other matters.
issue decided becomes
previous September,
clas-
since
may
be relit-
of the case” and
not
“law
officially
was not
fixed until
sification
in a
igated in the trial court or reexamined
1980,
the new union contract
March
when
Mattson
Underwriters
appeal.
executed,
at
time she
and
was
(Minn.
717,
Lloyds,
at
414 N.W.2d
719-20
1979, as
paid
retroactive to
1987).
here,
Such is the case
appraiser.” But even if the dis-
“property
appeals’
determination
act
crimination is said
consist of the
discrimination
advancement.
occurring in
job misclassification
March
But,
judicata, the doctrine of law
unlike res
1980, Sigurdson’s complaint, filed October
only
litigated
“applies
case
issues
30, 1980, is
a month too late.
still
which could have
and does not reach issues
If, however,
county’s
litigated.” Lange
been but were
violation, plaintiff may
continuing
awas
Inc.,
Service,
Nelson-Ryan Flight
263
running
of the statute of limita-
avoid
152,
(1962).
156,
266,
269
Minn.
recognized
viola-
tions.
Ry.
Brotherhood
and
Here,
although
of limita
tion doctrine
the statute
Clerks,
Freight
Handlers & Station
S.S.
ei
issue could have been reached
tions
by Balfour, 303 Minn.
Employees
v. State
I or
it was not. While
ther
(1975).
178,
two
pled
argued
229
3
There
black
N.W.2d
defendant
¡nation.
claim
have involved a
Each
would
remembered that when
It should be
asserted,
complex
plaintiff
tried
on
of limitations issue.
different statute
record,
discrim-
a number оf different claims of
plaintiffs
membership
were denied union
relies particularly on Ev-
Evans,
ans
Lorance.
they
porters
plaintiff
were classified as
al-
wrongfully
resign
though they
higher
did the
forced to
same work as
the air-
marriage.
line after her
janitors.
1960,
She did not
paid
In 1958 and
the union
com-
plain.
years
Four
later she was rehired
changed
plaintiffs
contract
to include
flight
(airline
attendant
policy having
they
as union members but
remained classi-
changed),
employee,
but as a new
with less
porters,
reduced,
fied
pay
their
pay and
seniority.
loss
her old
Hеr
seniority
their
dated from
the date of
complaint,
rehiring,
filed after her
was held
contract, and,
they
if
transferred out of
to be time-barred. Plaintiff’s
pay
cut in
classification,
their
they would lose
seniority
and loss of
were held to
be
seniority.
their
Plaintiffs did not
file
consequences of the earlier marital discrim-
charges
Nevertheless,
until 1966.
we con-
Lorance,
ination.
a 1980 union contract
discriminatory
cluded that
acts were
established a
seniority system
new
per-
“continuing in
plaintiffs’
nature” and held
employed
sons
as testers
in defendant’s
193,
Id. at
claims were not time-barred.
plant. Seniority for
depended
testers
difficult clearly erroneous. the com- of fact are change not its affects cause a employees plaining employees but that, at reveals The this case record Sigurdson’s complaint is based But well. stage, discrimination every no initial put proper in the classi- on failure to be denied, the grievance A union found. county’s job classification fication. Rights no found Department of Human job descriptions, is system, with lack no found and the trial court facially facially neutral as not much so Moreover, ap- first discrimination. assignment meaningless. Here affirmed the peal, appeals court of 1980 un- appraiser” under the “property remand- appeal to this we court. On simply left undisturbed the ion contract disagreed with not much because we ed so against plaintiff that gender discrimination finding of no discrimina- court’s the trial occurring since December tion, the trial we believed that but because plaintiff’s claim to wrongful denial of applied McDon- properly not court had deputy asses- with a be a assessor analysis by earlier mandated Douglas nell continuing act, and hence a pay was sor’s this decisions of court. of Lor- continuing violation. the case remand, found seniority system again the trial court ance, facially neutral On same, discrimination; ap- and the men and women treаted single in the act of its earli- peal, discrimination was the court reversed system, seniority adopting opening er and found that decision adoption. this subsequent effect of time had existed for some assessor hand, case, the discrimination on the other plaintiff fall and that prior to the of 1979 pro- failing act of continuing lies in the wrongfully opportunity denied with a mote fill it the fall of 1979. The case pay, a failure which con- deputy assessor’s a second time. The trial court remanded notwithstanding that she was al- tinued claim, existed, if it then found apprаising to do lowed limitations. by the statute barred adoption of notwithstanding the Nevertheless, appeal, third system in March so-called says now that meant that even continuing there discrimination 1979; therefore, the stat- after fall of therefore, hold, that the not bar the suit. ute of limitations does failing advance holding clearly to be erroneous believe this therefore, and, violation and would reverse the 30, 1980, not barred claim filed October following reasons: of limitations. Plaintiff has the statute court for attorney fees asked *7 my partial in dissent in pointed I оut appearance. I her current and that, litiga- appeal point, some the first I attorney fees for but deny end; yet, tion come to an here we are must $1,250 attorney ap fees in this award appeal to this court. No dis- on another peal. any crimination was found at level the appeals. to court of Affirmed. True, advisory jury to the court in trial YETKA, (dissenting). Justice trial found some the first finding to whether this but one has wonder I this case because believe that dissent solely on the sexist remarks was based persistent litigation example of how is an оn county assessor rather than warp period over of time can facts so in This discrimination action. travesty imposed on rural that a small though rejected by advisory jury, separate On three county Minnesota. by was resurrected occasions, has shifted cost appeals and will now protracted to giving thus rise position; very addition, dearly. litigation. In the court of my opinion, majority temporarily duties the absence 2.In decision sor’s of a deputy, helped foundation both in fact and law. would she out? I lacks have be- hired, because, was first she was be “no” When lieve answer would stenographer occasion, situation, had hired as and Sigurd- one in a similar high subsequent school education. Her supervisor why had asked her she son training appraiser county as a field was at being requested asked to do the work when expense. The record that she was a shows previously had led to she believe that person to difficult with whom work. She qualified to do she was not it. We must frequently refused directives her boss also bear mind that was ele- disciplined by and several him on occa- in job description and vаted to that of a time, sions. At one left the office she appraiser she completed field when considering herself fired over differences However, does not studies. entitle the assessor, county was allowed but that, by becoming hold a field hired, year In the return. she two appraiser, she was entitled to demand the Becker assessors—Curtis and post assessor well. Duane Johnson —were hired. also Their 3. The majority’s opens up decision qualifications superior educational far possibility many possible claims of Sigurdson; they to those of wеre both col- being brought years discrimination and lege graduates experi- and one of them had even decades after claimed act of dis- high ence a teacher and principal. school place. crimination very took This is the pertinent experience Both had in farm reason the contains a knowledge work and farm local values. period. limitations Sigurdson knew for al- question that, many is no There occa- 2 years most 1980—that the —from sions, employee in office each could be negotiating union was a contrаct with the duties, engaged typical similar county. Though she should have known employees in a small rural few with contract was executed in March department. department in each head 1980, she waited more than 6 months be- rigidly luxury defining does not have the bringing any did, fore When claim. she job description person. People for each was after the expired. statute of limitations expected are to be versatile and able to course, 4. Of must the courts be dili- perform a number of tasks. gent eliminating unfair all forms of in- here, As in situation when difficult However, equality. thing pro- it is one arose, appraisal situations decisions equality; quite mote it is another for an qualifica- be those with superior made appellate court to substitute itself for a Becker, tions. Curtis with whom engage interpre- trial court and in selective compared, son insists she should be tation order to find “facts” which consti- college degrees, Duane Johnson had farm pro- tute discrimination. conduct Such backgrounds knowledge of rural build- than inequality equality. motes rather ings values. In April Duane majority’s promote equali- decision will quit, leаving Johnson preferential ty, gives plaintiff rather open. position Is it discrimination if a simply treatment of her sex. vacancy assessor does not fill this Moreover, the second decision of the person Sigurdson’s qualifications advisory indicated qualifications if the assessor believes the jury’s damage recommendation should be inadequate? A supervisor be I think not. *8 by guide considered as a the trial court. given hiring, must be some discretion holding of By that the act placing positions firing people for True, violation over a dozen they qualified. are which best the years, reasoning majority’s expos- now county good did not have classifica- damages es could far system, many tion but how small counties jury create a specifically exceed award and tremen- do? If assessor here had a small person’s responsibilities each dous financial burden for defined not, my perform deputy opinion, asses- where the asked bear facts do tq KEITH, Justice. justify a conclusion of by union, Depart- supported Volz petition of Jeanne granted the Rights trial court. of and the ment Human of of an order reviеw for further of certiora- discharging the writ of and remand. ri. We reverse KELLEY, (dissenting). Justice of Minn. interpretation is At issue an expressed by Justice the reasons For provides: (1988) which 606.03 Stat. § paragraphs he Yetka numbered certiorari civil Each writ of join his dissent. by responsible be endorsed some shall surety for person as costs. herein was Specifically, the writ issued by accompanied itself endorsed but separate endorsement of an individual costs were surety requisite for costs. decision, its own properly paid. Relying on Regarding Complaint Annexation rе Peo Territory a Portion Service Proposed of the Termi- In the Matter by ples Cooperative Power Association Teacher, VOLZ, nation of Jeanne Rochester, (Minn.App. #858, Independent School District St. 1988), appeals discharged the court of Charles, Minnesota. writ. No. CO-89-1290. It is our view that expanded language has of our decision Supreme Court of Minnesota. Ryan ex Service Com- State rel. Civil Nov. Minneapolis, 278 Minn. mission of (1967), nec- beyond bounds compliance pur- essary to insure with the There, pose the statute. relator ob- the issuance of successive writs tained surety appropriate and filed the certiorari bonds, en- requisite did not obtain the dorsement. We affirmed district discharge upon of the writs court’s fatally they defective for basis statutory re- comply failure to quirements. may contemplate While the itself, on the are con-
endorsement writ we filing vinced that the simultaneous separate is sufficient to satis- endorsement fy purpose of the statute and that the discharge of the of certiorari on the writ overly ground inappropriate. technical of certiorari therefore reinstat- writ ed and matter remanded consideration on its merits. Paul, Harley Ogata, appellant. M. St. and remanded. Reversed Knutson, Skinner, Knutson, Marie
James Deans, Paul, St. for re- Flynn, Hetland & .
spondent.