Court Opinion

ID: 9527354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:29:50.409951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:44.697169
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
Prior to receiving the dissent of Justice Peterson, I had written a special concurring opinion reluctantly accepting the majority decision, but expressing strong reservations. After reading Justice Peterson’s scholarly and eloquent dissent, however, I join him in dissenting.
There is some controversy on how much significance could be attached to questions by defendants of female employees as to their marital status and whether they have their husbands’ or fathers’ consents to seek employment. I wish to make it clear that I do not believe it proper under any circumstances for an employer to ask for such consent. Women’s rights are too far advanced to turn the clock back to the 19th century. In my opinion, they are entitled to equal protection in seeking employment under both the federal and state constitutions whether an ERA amendment is adopted or not. Such a line of questioning is totally improper under the statute and the constitutions.
However, while employers have certain responsibilities under this statute, it does not totally abrogate their rights to obtain background information on prospective employees. The majority opinion states that, “[wjhile we recognize that in order to make informed and intelligent employment decisions, employers must be permitted some leeway to question an employee or applicant about his or her background, upbringing and perspective.” I’m not sure, however, that that is sufficient guidance or reassurance to employers. I am fearful that the opinion will be too broadly interpreted. While individual preferences might differ as to what characteristics should exist for a good employee, certain qualifications appear to be recognized universally as desirable; for example, is the prospective employee in good physical and mental health; is he/she likely to be honest and a conscientious worker; can he/she get along with fellow employees; is he/she likely to get to work on time; be free of frequent absences and perform his/her job cheerfully, efficiently and diligently? The fact is that there is a high correlation between being a good practicing Christian and fulfilling each of the foregoing qualifications.
If an affluent employer wants to spend the money to do so, he can easily, quietly have an investigation made of all prospective applicants and learn all he wants to know about that person or persons. A small or marginal employer, on the other hand, may not be able to afford such an investigation. Yet, the consequences of hiring an employee are, undoubtedly, more dire and harmful to the small employer than the large. Therefore, the act that claims as its purpose the prevention of certain discriminations may, in fact, result in quite another discrimination against certain employers.
Here is an act which has as its stated purpose the elimination of discrimination in employment. It has been rightly invoked to protect minorities — in color, gender, and religion. Yet, it would discriminate against the majority religion in the United States since the nation’s founding, namely, Christianity. This decision would deny a Christian the right to practice his belief in the marketplace. It would deny an employer the right to basic information about a prospective employee that affects not only the well-being of the employer and his business, but also that of the prospective employee’s fellow employees. I find the findings so repugnant that it reaches the stage of being ridiculous. True, the majority opinion points out that opinions of the United States federal courts would suggest that you may have a decision upholding one person’s constitutional rights that effectively deny another person his or her rights. That may be so, but where an act can be interpreted to prevent such a delicate balancing act, why shouldn’t it be so read?
As one of the original authors of fair employment practices legislation in the *877Minnesota Legislature in the 1950’s when such proposed legislation was extremely unpopular, I firmly believe that an employer should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender or creed. I also believe just as firmly that an employer cannot be denied his constitutional rights to information essential to making a meaningful selection of a new employee. We are at that stage in the evolution of American constitutional history where we are either going to be one nation indivisible with equal rights for all or we are going to become a nation with groups of citizens within that are virtually separate nations of themselves. The time has come to strike down all discrimination, all special privileges and treat all of our citizens equally before the law.
I,therefore, join Justice Peterson in finding that, under the Minnesota Constitution, defendants’ constitutional rights are violated by the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The proper disposition of this case perhaps should be to remand to the hearing examiner; however, I agree with Justice Peterson that the case has punished defendants far beyond whatever actions were taken on. their part. There comes a point where enough is enough, and the ease ought to be terminated here. I, therefore, would reverse.