Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03510/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03510-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation
Appellee
Robin K. Gamradt
Appellant
Taxi Connection
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3510

___________

Taxi Connection & Robin K. Gamradt, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Minnesota. 

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern *

Railroad Corporation, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 12, 2007

 Filed: January 22, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Taxi Connection and Robin K. Gamradt appeal from the district court’s1

dismissal of their claims against Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation

(DM&E) alleging: (1) reprisal, business, and gender discrimination in violation of the

Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and (2) breach of contract and promissory

estoppel. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609
-2-

The complaint alleges the following facts. In December 2001, Gamradt, the

owner of Taxi Connection, and DM&E orally agreed that it would primarily use Taxi

Connection for taxi services within a 25-mile radius of the Waseca depot. In summer

2003, a DM&E employee began frequently referring to a female Taxi Connection

driver as “shithead”; he did not call male drivers similar names. The driver

complained, but except for a temporary break, the behavior continued into December

2004. In December 2004, Gamradt reported the behavior to Tracy Lund, DM&E’s

director of Human Resources, who said she would investigate. A supervisor at

DM&E contacted Gamradt that day to inform her “angrily” that she had handled the

situation incorrectly. 

On December 14, 2004, DM&E terminated its services with Taxi Connection.

In January 2005, DM&E’s president told Gamradt that DM&E would investigate and

resolve her complaint within two weeks and that he had a low tolerance for retaliation.

Lund confirmed that two weeks was a reasonable time period. Despite these

assurances, DM&E never resolved the complaint, and Lund stopped discussing it with

Gamradt. 

From January 2005 to May 2006, Gamradt made numerous attempts to resume

doing business with DM&E. However, DM&E continually refused to use Taxi

Connection. 

On May 17, 2006, Taxi Connection and Gamradt sued DM&E. DM&E moved

to dismiss the MHRA counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the breach of

contract and promissory estoppel counts for failure to state a claim. The district court

granted DM&E’s motion, finding that the MHRA claims were time-barred, and that

the complaint did not allege the elements for breach of contract or promissory

estoppel. Taxi Connection and Gamradt appeal.

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609
-3-

This court reviews “de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486

F.3d 342, 347 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 

I.

Under the MHRA, unfair discriminatory practice claims must be filed within

one year of the occurrence of the practice. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subdiv. 3. The

continuing violation doctrine, applicable to MHRA claims, allows a plaintiff to avoid

the running of the statute of limitations. Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 448 N.W.2d 62,

66 (Minn. 1989). Thus, “each individual discriminatory act which is part of a

continuing violation triggers anew the time period for reporting the entire pattern of

discrimination, ‘as long as at least one incident of discrimination occurred within the

limitations period.’” Smith v. Ashland, Inc., 250 F.3d 1167, 1172 (8th Cir. 2001),

quoting Treanor v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 200 F.3d 570, 573 (8th Cir. 2000). The

doctrine often applies to hostile work environment claims, where the discriminatory

practice may consist of many acts not individually actionable. See Nat’l R.R.

Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115-16 (2002) (discussing the continuing

violation doctrine for Title VII claims); Sigurdson, 448 N.W.2d at 67 (in deciding

continuing violation issues, Minnesota courts may look to Supreme Court guidance

in Title VII cases). The continuing violation doctrine does not encompass discrete

discriminatory acts, such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or

refusal to hire, which are individually actionable. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536

U.S. at 113-14. The court “must distinguish between discriminatory acts and

discriminatory effects; the proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts,

not upon the time at which the consequences of the acts became most painful.”

Sigurdson, 448 N.W.2d at 67 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted;

emphasis in original). “The court must determine whether a present violation exists,

rather than whether there are continuing effects from earlier . . . decisions.” Kohn v.

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609
-4-

City of Minneapolis Fire Dep’t, 583 N.W.2d 7, 11 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998), citing

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977). 

The district court found that the alleged discriminatory practice occurred on

December 14, 2004, when DM&E terminated the contract, and therefore the MHRA

claims filed on May 17, 2006, were time-barred. Taxi Connection and Gamradt argue

that their MHRA claims are timely under the continuing violation doctrine, reasoning

that a new violation occurs each time DM&E refuses to use Taxi Connection. 

On the facts alleged, refusing to use Taxi Connection is a consequence of the

alleged discriminatory act, termination of the contract. DM&E’s use of other taxi

companies is not part of a continuing discriminatory practice or a series of related

discriminatory acts. The alleged discrimination was a discrete and singular act,

similar to termination of an employee, and was complete on December 14, 2004. See

Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. at 114; cf. Kohn, 583 N.W.2d at 11-12

(repeated failure to promote, based on a discriminatory eligibility list, was a

continuing violation). DM&E’s refusals to use Taxi Connection are the consequences

of the act of discrimination and do not fall within the continuing violation doctrine.

See Sigurdson, 448 N.W.2d at 67. The MHRA claims were properly dismissed as

untimely. 

II.

In analyzing a 12(b)(6) motion, this court assumes all factual allegations in the

complaint are true, but “the complaint must contain sufficient facts, as opposed to

mere conclusions, to satisfy the legal requirements of the claim to avoid dismissal.”

Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). “A motion to dismiss should be granted if ‘it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief.’” Koehler v.

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609
-5-

Brody, 483 F.3d 590, 596 (8th Cir. 2007), quoting Knapp v. Hanson, 183 F.3d 786,

788 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Taxi Connection and Gamradt assert that, in January 2005, a contract was

formed and breached when DM&E promised to investigate and resolve Gamradt’s

complaint within two weeks. “To establish a breach-of-contract claim, a plaintiff must

show that (1) a contract was formed; (2) the plaintiff performed any conditions

precedent; and (3) the defendant breached the contract. The formation of a contract

requires communication of a specific and definite offer, acceptance, and

consideration.” Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., 712 N.W.2d

772, 782 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (internal citations omitted). Here, there was no

specific and definite offer, and thus no contract was formed. See Pine River State

Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 626 (Minn. 1983) (employee handbook may be

considered an offer if it is definite and more than general policy statements). When

DM&E informed Gamradt that it would investigate and resolve her complaint, it was

responding to her complaint, not specifically and definitely offering to enter a

contract. The breach of contract claim was properly dismissed; Taxi Connection and

Gamradt cannot prove any set of facts entitling them to relief.

Alternatively, Taxi Connection and Gamradt contend that, under promissory

estoppel, DM&E should be accountable for its promises to investigate and resolve

Gamradt’s complaint. To establish promissory estoppel, Taxi Connection and

Gamradt must show: (1) DM&E made a clear and definite promise; (2) DM&E

intended to induce reliance and Taxi Connection and Gamradt did rely to their

detriment; and (3) enforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice.

Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732, 746 (Minn. 2000). The

detriment alleged is that DM&E made promises to investigate and resolve the

complaint to induce Taxi Connection and Gamradt to postpone their lawsuit until the

statute of limitations had expired. Critically, DM&E explicitly limited any promises

to two weeks, nowhere near the year in which Taxi Connection and Gamradt had to

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609
-6-

file their claims. Taxi Connection and Gamradt cannot establish the second element.

The promissory estoppel claim was properly dismissed; Taxi Connection and Gamradt

cannot prove any set of facts entitling them to relief. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3510 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/22/2008 Entry ID: 3393609