Court Opinion

ID: 9663333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:35:30.6091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:48.014215
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Moorhead originally opened the groundskeeping position to bids from inside the University, but no current Moorhead employees applied for the position. Moorhead’s personnel department was informed by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations that the position should be filled by a woman, so the personnel department requested the Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training for assistance in filling the position with a woman.
Moorhead presented testimony from thirteen witnesses; the AU found none of them credible. The record as a whole persuades me that the AU may have been predisposed to find discrimination. In numerous instances, she questioned Moor-head’s witnesses, demanding further explanations of their testimony and/or actions. In Shockency v. Jefferson Lines, 439 N.W.2d 715 (Minn.1989), the court stated:
The line between what questioning is reasonably necessary to get clear answers from unresponsive witnesses and what is beyond what is reasonably necessary is, at times, a fine one.
Id. at 718. The AU appears to have stepped over that line in this case.
It is clear to me that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that Hanstine was merely miscast for this particular job *86and simply could not perform the duties required of her. I would reverse.