Court Opinion

ID: 9737480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:26:24.021291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:59.217125
License: Public Domain

GARDEBRING, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result in this case, but only because respondent provided no evidence of the percentage of public assistance recipients who are unemployed. I believe this evidence would demonstrate an extremely high correspondence between public assistance recipients and the unemployed.
That being so, a case of disparate impact could be established, particularly because a legitimate business need must be met through the least discriminatory practice. See Schlemmer v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., 397 N.W.2d 903, 909 (Minn.App.1986) (employee may prevail by showing an alternative practice that the employer could use to achieve its desired end without having the illegal disparate impact).
It is certainly legitimate for Rent-A-Wreck to establish economic criteria for automobile rental. However, a practice determining existence, amount or regularity of income, or examining credit history would meet Rent-A-Wreck’s needs with less discriminatory impact. There is simply *301no nexus between source of income and economic reliability, and the focus on source of income is disallowed by the ordinance.