Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-0543 Court of Appeals Meyer, J. Dissenting, Page and Anderson, Paul H., JJ.

Carol J. LaMont, Appellant, vs. Independent School District #728, Respondent. ________________________ James H. Kaster, David E. Schlesinger, Adam W. Hansen, Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant. Thomas A. Harder, Greta Bauer Reyes, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. Justin D. Cummins, Miller O'Brien Cummins, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Leslie L. Lienemann, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association, Minnesota Chapter. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General, Margaret Jacot, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Attorney General. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. A hostile work environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Filed: May 16, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts

Minn. Stat. ch. 363A (2010), may be based on harassing conduct that is based on sex, even if the offending conduct is not sexual. 1

2.

The totality of the circumstances of appellant's claim of a hostile work

environment based on sex do not establish that the employer's conduct was severe or pervasive. Affirmed. OPINION MEYER, Justice. Appellant Carol LaMont filed suit against her employer, Independent School District #728 (the School District), for violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. ch. 363A (2010). Lamont claimed that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex and that she had suffered sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment to the School District on both claims, concluding that a hostile work environment based on sex was not actionable, and even if it were, LaMont had not established that the conduct of the School District's employees was sufficiently severe or pervasive. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the MHRA does not protect individuals from a hostile work environment based on sex unless the conduct falls within the definition of "sexual harassment" in the MHRA. We conclude that a cause of action for a hostile work environment based on sex is actionable under the MHRA. But we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the employer because the employee's allegations are insufficient to state a claim of hostile work environment. LaMont began working as a custodian at Elk River High School in 2002. In April 2006, Doug Miner was hired as the night lead custodian. Before Miner was hired, the 2

custodial staff was subject to little supervision and there was significant turnover in management. Miner was hired to improve custodial services at the high school and required accountability among the custodial employees. As the night lead, Miner

supervised three male custodians and two female custodians, including LaMont. Two months later, Miner was promoted to head custodian. In this position, he no longer directly supervised LaMont but indirectly supervised her as the head of all custodial workers. Miner made several comments to his employees and co-workers that indicated his negative view of women in the workplace. In his position as night lead, Miner told a male employee that he did not want any women on his crew. Miner stated to LaMont in May 2006, "I have no intention of ever asking you anything." In this same May 2006 encounter, Miner described a coworker's wife as "not bad," and stated that "[w]omen have their place. You've got to keep them in their place." Miner commented on a separate occasion that the only place for women is the "kitchen and the bedroom." In another instance, LaMont saw Miner lifting a heavy object and warned Miner not to "screw up" his back. In response, Miner stated, "The only screwing I do is with my wife." In December 2006, in front of LaMont and two other custodians, Miner stated, "There is a time and a place for women and Elk River High School is not the time or the place." Miner differentiated female workers from male workers. Female custodians were permitted to take breaks in a separate location from Miner but had to check in via radio. Miner asserted that he required these check-ins to ensure accountability. The two female 3

custodians were also required to put their lunches in the break room before clocking in at the beginning of their shifts. Miner physically separated the work areas of the men and the women, and as head custodian, he instructed the night and day leads to separate the men and the women. Additionally, Miner prohibited the female custodians from talking unless they were on a break. Miner instructed his night lead custodian to tell the two female custodians they could not talk to each other or to the male custodians. Miner told a male custodian not to speak to the two female custodians and that he could be "fired within 30 days" if he associated with the female custodians. Miner explained that his instructions about refraining from talking were designed to promote productivity. LaMont is not the only Elk River High School employee with documented problems with Miner. One male employee filed a complaint against Miner because the employee was upset about Miner yelling at him. In addition, a lead custodian sent a letter to the district superintendent complaining that Miner's conduct harassed the whole crew, not just the women. On at least two separate occasions, LaMont reported Miner's comments about women and Miner's requirement of radio check-ins to the high school Principal and her union steward. The Principal responded that he would monitor the situation. In

September 2006, a group of the high school custodial staff, including LaMont, met with the Principal and discussed, among other topics, the separation of male and female work areas, and the instruction that the female employees not talk, as well as Miner's comments to the custodians. The Principal responded that he would talk to Miner's supervisors. Miner's comment about the time and the place for women led LaMont to 4

again report Miner's conduct to the Principal and the union steward, and led to another meeting of all the custodians. LaMont also reported Miner's behavior to the Supervisor of Building and Grounds, to the Manager of Facilities, and to Human Resources. In response to a letter from the Principal to the Superintendent, the School District hired a private investigator to investigate the custodial staff's complaints. LaMont met with the investigator in April 2007 and repeated her complaints about Miner, including Miner's multiple comments about the place of women, the differential treatment of women regarding breaks, and the instruction that the women not talk during work hours. The investigator doubted

LaMont's credibility and told the School District's attorney that her complaints were meritless. LaMont filed suit, alleging that Miner's conduct violated section 363A.08 of the MHRA. LaMont articulated two theories of liability in her complaint: first, that she was subjected to a hostile work environment; and second, that she was subjected to sexual harassment. The School District moved for summary judgment on all claims. At the summary judgment hearing, LaMont chose to pursue only her hostile work environment claim. The district court granted summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim on the basis that the MHRA does not permit a hostile work environment claim based on harassment that does not meet the definition of sexual harassment under Minn. Stat.

5



Download A10-543, Carol J. LaMont, Appellant, vs. Independent School District #728, Respo

Minnesota Law