Ronald N. and Karen M. Gross - Page 15




                                         - 15 -                                          
          was taken into account by both Okabena and petitioner in                       
          negotiating their settlement agreement.                                        
               We find that petitioner had asserted a bona fide claim for                
          defamation at the time the settlement agreement was executed;                  
          therefore, the first element of Schleier is met.6                              
               B.  Age Discrimination                                                    
               Petitioner asserts that his age discrimination claim was                  
          grounded upon the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. Ann.                 
          secs. 363.01-363.15 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000), and not the Age                  
          Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Pub. L. 90-202,               
          sec. 2, 81 Stat. 602, currently codified at 29 U.S.C. secs. 621-               
          634 (1994), due to jurisdictional limitations of the ADEA.7                    


               6Petitioner argued, in the alternative, that the first                    
          element of a defamation claim, i.e., that a statement was                      
          communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, may be met                   
          through the doctrine of “self-publication”.  Lewis v. Equitable                
          Life Assurance Socy. of the U.S., 389 N.W.2d 876, 886 (Minn.                   
          1986).  Generally, there is no publication where a statement is                
          communicated directly to the plaintiff, who then communicates it               
          to a third person.  Minnesota law, however, recognizes the                     
          doctrine of compelled self-publication and acknowledges that the               
          publication requirement of a defamation action “may be satisfied               
          where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory                      
          statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the                       
          defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.”  Id. at 888.              
          In light of our holding, however, we need not address the merits               
          of petitioner’s alternative argument.                                          
               7The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),                 
          Pub. L. 90-202, sec. 2, 81 Stat. 602, currently codified at 29                 
          U.S.C. secs. 621-634 (1994), prohibits claims against employers                
          with fewer than 20 employees.  In contrast, age discrimination                 
          actions under the Minnesota Human Rights Act may be brought                    
          against employers with one or more employees.  See Minn. Stat.                 
                                                               (continued...)            





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011