- 17 - Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 336. Thus, a recovery under the ADEA is not one “based upon tort or tort type rights.” Id. In Schleier, the Court emphasized that “one of the hallmarks of traditional tort liability is the availability of a broad range of damages to compensate the plaintiff ‘fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights.’” Id. at 335; see also Mayberry v. United States, 151 F.3d at 859 (“the proper focus is the remedial scheme in the statute providing the cause of action and the nature of the relief available under the scheme”). In contrast, an age discrimination claim pursued under the Minnesota Human Rights Act appears to be “based upon tort or tort type rights.” Commissioner v. Schleier, supra at 336.8 The Minnesota Human Rights Act specifically provides for damages other than those of a purely economic nature. For example, in all cases where there is a finding of unfair discrimination, as defined in Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 363.03, subd. 1, the person against whom the complaint has been filed or issued shall pay a civil penalty to the State and compensatory damages to the aggrieved party in an amount up to three times the actual damages sustained. See Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 363.071, subd. 2 (West 1991 8“The provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act are liberally construed to accomplish its purposes.” Continental Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241, 248 (Minn. 1980) (citing City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 239 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Minn. 1976)).Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011