 | |
|
 |
||
 |
|
 |
 |
||
 |
||
Minnesota Chamber's Advocacy in the Courts
Decisions made by the courts can have as much consequence to businesses as does new legislation. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has a longstanding presence in filing legal briefs on behalf of its members, and often with successful results.
Requests to file amicus briefs are forwarded for consideration to the Litigation Committee, which is staffed by Tom Hesse, vice president of government affairs. The Chamber will prepare a brief only if a case raises an issue of consequence to the general business community.
Following are recent court cases in which the Minnesota Chamber has intervened:
Pamela Krueger, Diamond Dust Contracting, LLC vs. Zeman Construction Company
(May 2009)
Issue: Pamela Krueger, owner of Diamond Dust Contracting, tried to personally sue Zeman Construction, alleging that Zeman’s managers sexually harassed and discriminated against her as a subcontractor on a work project. The Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, ruled that she lacked standing under the Minnesota Human Rights Act to sue as an individual for discrimination in the performance of the contract.
Significance: The Minnesota Chamber supported the decision of the Hennepin County District Court and Court of Appeals, both of which denied Krueger’s claim. The higher court ruled that Krueger’s discrimination suit as an individual could not move forward. She still is able to sue as Diamond Dust Contracting. The ruling prevented multiple recoveries for the same incident. The Legislature understood this and intended to limit discrimination liability accordingly, the Chamber said.
Result: A ruling is pending from the Minnesota Supreme Court
Clifford L. Whitaker, et al. vs. 3M Company
(April 2009)
Issue: Five current and former 3M employees alleged in 2004 that the company engaged in age discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Ramsey County District Court certified the suit as a class action.
Significance: 3M argued that it maintained neutral policies that had a disparate effect on older employees. The Minnesota Chamber also argued that the class-certification order was entered without making real findings of fact to support the court’s decision. If the ruling stood, Minnesota could be viewed as a haven for initiating class-action suits.
Result: The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the order, ruling that employees seeking to initiate class-action lawsuits against Minnesota businesses must provide clear evidence that all certification requirements have been met. The case was sent back to the lower court to resolve the factual disputes relevant to the class-action certification requirements.
For a complete summary of the Minnesota Chamber’s intervention in court proceedings, contact Tom Hesse at (651) 292-4678 or thesse@mnchamber.com.
This web site is developed and owned by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Any use or reprinting is strictly prohibited without prior consent of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.