29. Grant a Fair Hearing to Officer on Age Discrimination.

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote for the Supreme Court that MPD Police Officer Scott Peterson deserved a fair hearing on his complaint of "age discrimination" when he was transferred from one unit to another.  See here.

2017-038  Scott Peterson, Respondent, Roger Smith, Plaintiff, vs. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, Appellant.

BACKGROUND:  Peterson worked as a Minneapolis police officer from 1987 to 2012. In October 2011, the City transferred Peterson from his position with the Violent Offender Task Force to another police unit. At the time of the transfer, Peterson was 54 years old. Peterson argues that he was transferred because of his age. In November 2011, Peterson filed a complaint with the City, claiming that the transfer was because of age discrimination. The City investigated the claim. In January 2013, more than a year after Peterson’s complaint, the City concluded the transfer was not a result of age discrimination.

on March 12, 2014, Peterson commenced this action against Minneapolis, alleging that the City discriminated against him based on his age in violation of the MHRA.

The City moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Peterson’s MHRA claim was not timely filed. The district court granted the City’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Peterson’s claim was not filed within the one-year limitations period.

 The court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals concluded that the parties were engaged in a “dispute resolution process” during the period of time in which the City’s human resources department was investigating Peterson’s claim, which suspended the statute of limitations

HELD:  The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded Peterson’s claim to the district court.

The parties were "voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process involving a claim of unlawful discrimination" under the Minnesota Human Rights Act that suspended the statute of limitations for the employee’s age discrimination claim. Affirmed.

DISSENT: Justices Anderson and Stras opined: “Because the Workplace Policy is not a “dispute resolution process” under Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3(b), and Peterson could not have “engaged” in the process even if it were, I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for the City.”

Gildea (Lillehaug, Hudson, Chutich, and McKeig)

               DISSENT:  Anderson and Stras.

Date: April 12, 2017

[POLICE] [LABOR] [GILDEA]