From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., fsb

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 17, 1993
509 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. 1993)

Summary

holding plaintiff may prevail on reprisal claim despite employer's legitimate reason for discharge if illegitimate reason "more likely than not" motivated termination

Summary of this case from Blanchard v. Northwest Publications

Opinion

No. C7-92-2267.

December 17, 1993.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, Steven D. Swanson, J.

Richard S. Virnig, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Timothy D. Kelly, David J. Duddleston, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


We entertain review on the petition for further review filed by the plaintiff John S. McGrath for the sole purpose of clarifying the decision of the court of appeals, McGrath v. TCF Savings Bank, 502 N.W.2d 801 (Minn.App. 1993) as it defined the scope of the remand for retrial on McGrath's retaliatory discharge claim. The court of appeals concluded that the instruction given "was in error because it did not require the jury to determine whether the reasons for McGrath's discharge offered by TCF were pretextual." McGrath, 502 N.W.2d at 807. Its explanation for that statement, however, misstates the McDonnell-Douglas method of proof, suggesting that an employer could avoid liability even if an illegitimate reason played a role in the discharge so long as the other proffered reason was not pretextual. McGrath v. TCF Savings Bank, 502 N.W.2d 801, 807 (footnote 2). As we made clear in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall Co., 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1988), even if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason "more likely than not" motivated the discharge decision. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d at 627. See also Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1986).

We therefore modify the court of appeals' decision to reflect our view that, on retrial, the jury should be instructed in accordance with the cumulative statements we have made in Anderson and Sigurdson. The petition for further review is, in all other respects, denied.

Court of appeals' opinion modified.


Summaries of

McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., fsb

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 17, 1993
509 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. 1993)

holding plaintiff may prevail on reprisal claim despite employer's legitimate reason for discharge if illegitimate reason "more likely than not" motivated termination

Summary of this case from Blanchard v. Northwest Publications

granting review "for the sole purpose of clarifying the decision of the court of appeals"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.

requiring jury instructions to reflect the applicable law by allowing a plaintiff to prevail, despite other legitimate reasons for the discharge, "if an illegitimate reason `more likely than not' motivated the discharge decision"

Summary of this case from Chadwell v. Koch Refining Co.

clarifying that in a whistleblower case applying McDonnell Douglas , an employer may still be liable even if it provides a legitimate reason for terminating an employee "if an illegitimate reason ‘more likely than not’ motivated the discharge decision" (quoting Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co. , 417 N.W.2d 619, 627 (Minn. 1988) )

Summary of this case from Hanson v. State

addressing jury instructions

Summary of this case from Vangrinsven v. City of Canby
Case details for

McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., fsb

Case Details

Full title:John S. McGRATH, Petitioner, Appellant, v. TCF BANK SAVINGS, fsb…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Dec 17, 1993

Citations

509 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. 1993)

Citing Cases

Hanson v. State

We agree ...."); Graham v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 472 N.W.2d 114, 119 n.7 (Minn. 1991) ("McDonnell…

Peterson v. City of Richfield

A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterson's motion for a new trial because the…