9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevichgreen1 sentence2016Snyder, 471 N.W.2d at 720-21 . 12 governmental entanglement precludes judicial review.” Id. (citing Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 717, 721 ). | 1 | 1 |
Munro Holding, LLC v. Cookgreen1 sentence2012But whether such actions constitute sexual harassment under the statute is a question of law.” Munro Holding, LLC v. Cook, 695 N.W.2d 379, 385 (Minn.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc.green2 sentences2010Group, 751 N.W.2d 558, 567 (Minn.2008), following 2001 amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act, that the fifth element of a sexual harassment claim was no longer required. 2010To prevail on a sexual harassment claim under a hostile-work-environment theory, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on [sex]; [and] (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of her employment.” Frieler, 751 N.W.2d at 571 n. 11. | 1 | 1 |
Goins v. West Groupgreen1 sentence2010At issue here is whether appellant has presented evidence sufficient to meet the fourth element of her claim. 1 In order to demonstrate that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment, a plaintiff will have to show the harassment was “so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the [plaintiffs] employment and create *203 an abusive working environment.” Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717, 725 (Minn.2001) (alteration in original) (quoting Meritor Sav. | 1 | 1 |
Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc.green1 sentence2005Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc., 509 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Minn.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Elizabeth M. Paroline v. Unisys Corporation Edgar L. Mooregreen1 sentence1998Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 105 (4th Cir.1989), vacated in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Continental Can Co. Ex Rel. Wilson v. Statered2 sentences1988Continental Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241, 249 (Minn.1980). 1988Continental Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241, 249 (Minn.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Black v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2016We determined the prohibition of excessive entanglement with internal church affairs prohibited judicial review of the discharge-related claims; however, we reversed the trial court’s dismissal of 13 the sexual-harassment claim because it did not “involve scrutiny of church doctrine, interfere in matters of an inherently ecclesiastical nature, or infringe upon the church’s religious practice.” Id. at 721 . 2016Snyder, 471 N.W.2d at 720-21 . . 1 Respondents also contend that the Pfeils’ claims are barred by the Freedom of Conscience Clause in Article I, section 16 of the, Minnesota Constitution. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Investigation & Determination of an Appropriate Unit & Exclusive Representative Hill-Murray Federation of Teachers, St. Paul v. Hill-Murray High School, Maplewood
green
1 sentence2016In Hill-Murray Fed’n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High Sch., lay employees of a Catholic high school petitioned the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services for determination of an appropriate bargaining unit and certification as exclusive representative under the Minnesota Labor Relations Act (MLRA). 487 N.W.2d 857 , 859- 60 (Minn. 1992). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeld
green
1 sentence1999Exclusion for Insured’s Business Pursuits Zimmerman claims the district court erred in concluding that the homeowner’s insurance policy issued to him by Safeco does not provide coverage for a sexual-harassment claim brought against him by a former employee, arguing that the business-pursuits exclusion does not apply and that he is entitled to full protection under the policy. “[A]n insurer has the burden of proving that a policy exclusion applies,” and courts read such exclusions “narrowly against the insurer.” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Elizabeth M. PAROLINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNISYS CORPORATION; Edgar L. Moore, Defendants-Appellees
green
1 sentence1998Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 105 (4th Cir.1989), vacated in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.