Court Opinion

ID: 9688073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:00:34.754079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:40.999733
License: Public Domain

OPINION
COYNE, Justice.
We granted the petition of defendant Onan Corporation for further review of a decision of the court of appeals for the limited purpose of clarifying the relationship between this court’s analysis in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn.1988) and the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2751-52, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) in the context of the claims of plaintiffs Robert Hasnudeen and Tracy Hines that under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.03 (Supp.1989), the termination of their employment was unlawful.
After a trial to the court, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant-employer Onan Corporation upon the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had failed to sustain their ultimate burden of persuasion that their discharge from employment was discriminatory. In a split decision, a majority of the court of appeals’ panel held that the trial court had improperly applied the third step of the three-part test enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) and that the trial court’s finding that there was no discrimination was clearly erroneous. Hasnudeen v. Onan Corp., 531 N.W.2d 891 (Minn.App.1995). We reverse and reinstate the judgment entered in favor of the defendant Onan Corporation.
The facts underlying the discriminatory discharge claims are detailed in the court of appeals’ opinion. Summarily, these employees, one of East Indian ancestry and the other half Native American, began a dating relationship and were subjected by eowork-ers to an uncomfortable and “racially charged atmosphere” at their place of employment. On March 24, 1989, the plaintiffs engaged in a shouting dispute which escalated into apparent physical contact between them. The altercation took place in a glass-walled office in plain view of coworkers. An investigatory committee internally appointed by Onan ultimately determined to discharge both plaintiffs for violation of a company policy against physical fighting and Hasnu-deen alone for lying during the investigation when he denied any-physical confrontation with Hines.
In examining the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims asserted under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the trial court conducted the three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis, concluding, first, that the plaintiffs have sustained their burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination; second, that the defendant sustained the shifted burden of production to present evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and third, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the employer’s proffered reasons were in fact a pretext for discrimination. See Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-94, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). See, *557also, Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715 (Minn.1986).
This dispute centers on whether the trial court properly analyzed the third prong of the test. In this regard, the court of appeals concluded that, to the extent that the trial court relied upon language in St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, supra, and applied “the more rigid federal standard” than that approved by this court in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., supra, its analysis was flawed and its decision must be reversed. The predicate for its holding was its apparent conclusion that Hicks utilized a “mixed motive” analysis which had been expressly rejected in Anderson. We are unable to identify any basis for that conclusion.
In our view neither the instant case nor Hicks is a “mixed-motive” case — one which arises when the court finds that an employment decision was based partly on legitimate motives and partly on unlawful ones. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). In Hicks, the trial court determined that the employer’s proffered reasons were not the true reasons for the employee’s demotion and discharge. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 508, 113 S.Ct. at 2747-48. It also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that race was the determining factor in the termination decision. Accordingly, there was no finding that the employment decision rested on “mixed motives.”
The same observation may be made with regard to the matter before us. While the trial court acknowledged that the plaintiffs worked in a “racially-charged atmosphere” in which coworkers hurled racial epithets and derogatory comments about the dating relationship, it concluded that the lies of Hasnu-deen and both plaintiffs’ violation of the prohibition against fighting provided the sole bases for their termination — there was no “mixed motive.”
Perhaps more pointedly, Hicks does not establish a more rigid analytical standard than we have in Anderson. The Hicks court merely emphasized that the plaintiff still bore the “ultimate burden” of persuading the factfinder by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant discriminated against him because of his race. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 507, 113 S.Ct. at 2747. In Anderson, we similarly commented that with regard to the third prong of the test, the sole question is “whether or not the court is persuaded that the employee has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Anderson, 417 N.W.2d at 626. Under either standard, the plaintiff bears the final burden of demonstration that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employer’s actions.
In the matter before us, the trial court’s use of the Hicks analysis was appropriate as an elaboration of the long-familiar third step of McDonnell Douglas.
The court of appeals also held that the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs were not discriminated against was clearly erroneous and warranted reversal. However, we have traditionally accorded great deference to a trial court’s findings of fact because it has the advantage of hearing the testimony, assessing relative credibility of witnesses and acquiring a thorough understanding of the circumstances unique to the matter before it. Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 721 (Minn.1986). Where, as here, the matter rests largely on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight, if any, to be given their testimony, we are unable to conclude that the findings are clearly erroneous. Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01 (1995).
We respond to the dissenting opinion because it leads the reader to believe that the trial court left a portion of the plaintiffs’ claims unresolved. On the contrary, the trial court fully decided the matter as it was pled and tried — that is, that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff Hasnudeen “in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subds. 1 and 7,” and against plaintiff Hines “in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 7.” Apparently, the dissenting justice would retry this case for the plaintiffs on a new and different theory by generously and expansively redrafting the complaint and amending the prayer for relief to add general claims of discrimination. The trial court properly declined to do so in deciding the plaintiffs’ post-trial motions to that effect.
*558The trial court found that the plaintiffs “did indeed work in a racially-charged atmosphere,” but although the “[p]laintiffs may have had the potential for a ‘hostile work environment’ claim,” there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the defendant was notified or otherwise aware of the alleged conduct of the plaintiffs’ coworkers or that any of Onan’s supervisors or anyone in authority discriminated against the plaintiffs. Even crediting the evidence of the deplorable conduct, the plaintiffs made no showing of discrimination on the part of the defendant.
Moreover, in his order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for amended findings or a new trial, the trial court directly addressed the plaintiffs’ post-trial assertion that they had alleged a claim based on a hostile work environment:
However, the real issue throughout the trial — the one which the parties actually litigated and argued — was whether defendant Onan discharged plaintiffs for improper reasons. Plaintiffs themselves, in the first sentence of their written final argument, stated that the plaintiffs “were unlawfully discharged by Onan Corporation (‘Onan/Defendant’) on account of their race and association.” [Emphasis by the trial court.]
The court went on to say—
[B]ecause plaintiffs lost on their claims of discriminatory discharge, they now appear to be asserting that they also had claims of hostile work environment. We cannot allow plaintiffs to re-eharaeterize their claims and now assert a different theory.
As this court has stated on more than one occasion, litigants are bound on appeal by the theory, however erroneous or improvident, on which the action was actually tried. E.g., Pomush v. McGroarty, 285 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.1979); Gillen v. Commissioner of Taxation, 305 Minn. 525, 232 N.W.2d 894 (1975); John W. Thomas Co. v. Carlson-LaVine, Inc., 291 Minn. 29, 189 N.W.2d 197 (1971); State v. Adams, 251 Minn. 521, 89 N.W.2d 661, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 826, 79 S.Ct. 45, 3 L.Ed.2d 67 (1958). Like the trial court we can discern no basis for departing from this long-established principle.
Simply put, if there is a claim here, and this record indicates that there is none, the plaintiffs — not the trial court — should have asserted it.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment entered for defendant.
Reversed and judgment reinstated.