After a disciplinary hearing on June 2, Gordon was suspended without pay or benefits for fall quarter 1997. This lawsuit followed. I O N When reviewing an appeal from a summary judgment, an appellate court must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in its interpretation of law. On appeal, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted. I. Appellants brought sexual harassment claims against respondent Gordon and the university.
Discrimination based on sex explicitly includes sexual harassment.
Minnesota has adopted the three-part McDonnell Douglas test for addressing sexual harassment claims, consisting of a prima facie case, an answer, and a rebuttal. Applying this test, appellants have established, at least, a genuine issue of material fact as to the first of these elements. The determinative question, however, is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the second element of a prima facie case, which requires that the harassment be severe, persistent, or pervasive and substantially interferes with the education of appellants or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment. In Peters , an attorney discipline action against the dean of a law school, the unwelcome sexual conduct included instances of the dean caressing the women's hair, putting his hands around and squeezing their waists or rib cages, putting his arm around their shoulders, pulling women towards his body, and making suggestive comments. Likewise, in federal cases involving educational institutions, actions which were sufficient to constitute pervasive sexual harassment generally included explicit sexual comments or physical contact.