- 19 -
Employee Dev. Corp., 516 N.W.2d 198, 201 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
Minnesota law permits plaintiffs to use circumstantial evidence
to prove discriminatory intent. See Feges v. Perkins
Restaurants, Inc., 483 N.W.2d 701, 710 (Minn. 1992).
The record confirms that petitioner had a nonfrivolous claim
of age discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which
he asserted in good faith. By reason of his age, petitioner was
a member of a protected class under the Minnesota Human Rights
Act when Okabena terminated his employment. See Minn. Stat. Ann.
sec. 363.01, subd. 3. Petitioner was qualified for his position;
indeed, petitioner was employed at Okabena for 16 years and
received at least two promotions during that period. Petitioner
was terminated from Okabena and replaced with a younger worker.11
Petitioner also testified that during the negotiations he
specifically mentioned a potential claim for age discrimination
and pointed to a specific pattern of discrimination against
Okabena employees.
We find, therefore, that petitioner also had asserted a bona
fide claim of age discrimination at the time the settlement
agreement was executed.
11At the time he was terminated, petitioner was
approximately 49 years old. Mr. Dayton testified that petitioner
was replaced by a younger person.
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