Title: Zimdars v. Special School District No. 1

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

230 N.W.2d 465 (1975) S. Ruth ZIMDARS, Appellant, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent. No. 45436. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 30, 1975. S. Ruth Zimdars, pro se. Lindquist & Vennum and Jerrold F. Bergfalk, Minneapolis, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. PER CURIAM. This proceeding comes to this court for review of a decision of the District Court of Hennepin County confirming findings and conclusions of a hearing examiner appointed by the Human Rights Department, State of Minnesota. The matter arises out of a complaint filed by appellant, Ms. S. Ruth Zimdars, a longtime mathematics teacher in the Minneapolis school system, alleging that she was discriminated against by the School Board of Special School District No. 1 in refusing to hire her in an administrative position because of her sex. The Human Rights Department, pursuant to the provisions of Minn.St. c. 363, investigated the matter and determined that there was probable cause to believe that the respondent district had committed discriminatory practices in violation of § 363.03. After conciliation efforts failed, the matter was referred to a hearing examiner. The hearing examiner, after finding favorably to appellant on two legal issues, found respondent did not discriminate against appellant by reason of her sex and, accordingly, respondent did not violate § 363.03, subd. 1. The district court, on review, confirmed this decision. A significant portion of the hearing officer's memorandum states as follows: Pursuant to the provision of § 15.0426, the scope of review in this court is as provided in § 15.0425 which states as follows: An examination of the voluminous record leads to the conclusion that the district court's decision to confirm the findings of the hearing examiner was proper. We are very cognizant, as was the hearing examiner, of the fact that Ms. Zimdars has exemplified a high degree of competence in and dedication to the teaching profession. We are equally aware that there have been instances of discriminatory practices in many fields with regard to the implementation of employment opportunities. However, the record indicates that the hearing examiner was fully apprised of all relevant evidence in this matter. With such evidence in mind, he concluded that the facts as presented do not demonstrate discrimination against appellant in the hiring practice. A review of the carefully prepared opinion of the hearing examiner establishes that there is substantial evidence to support his *467 findings. Therefore, although this court will not tolerate discriminatory hiring practices, such is not demonstrated by the substantial evidence gleaned from the entire record, and we must affirm the decision rendered below. Affirmed. SHERAN, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.