- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011