Court Opinion

ID: 9859959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:04:13.42757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:11:24.117723
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the remand for a new trial. I agree there was overemphasis on the means of replacement in the special verdict form and the instructions. How the claimants were replaced by younger workers, as differentiated from whether they were so replaced, is an evidentiary feature, not an element of the disparate treatment claim. Further, I agree that the trial court was too restrictive in limiting NDHA’s presentation of evidence about its claimed legitimate reasons for terminating Schuhmacher and Wavra.
In my opinion, however, the majority opinion subtly shifts the formulation that this court agreed on in Schweigert, which “placed a greater burden of proof on defendants than do the federal courts,” by equating the effect of the Schweigert presumption to that of the more tentative federal presumption. This shift is apparent in this passage of the majority opinion:
Under either the North Dakota Human Rights Act or the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], a plaintiff may, but does not necessarily, prevail on the basis of the prima facie case combined with a finding of the incredibility of the defendant employer’s proffered explanation for its employment decision. Schweigert, 503 N.W.2d at 229 [“If the employer fails to persuade the trier of fact that the challenged action was motivated by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the plaintiff prevails.”]; St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, [— U.S.-,-], 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749 [125 L.Ed.2d 407] (1993) [“The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination.”]; _
Also, I believe the majority really employs the federal formulation, rather than the Schweigert one, when it later concludes:
Thus, a properly-instructed jury which finds by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of age discrimination while disbelieving the defendant’s alternative explanations for its actions could viably conclude that the defendant illegally discriminated on the basis of age.
Under Schweigert, rather, the effect of NDREv 301 is that “a properly-instructed jury which finds by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of age discrimination while disbelieving the defendant’s alternative explanations for its actions [must] conclude that the defendant illegally discriminated on the basis of age.”
This difference in effect is best illustrated by what a majority of this court subscribed to in Schweigert:
If the employer fails to persuade the trier of fact that the challenged action was motivated by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the plaintiff prevails. If, however, the employer persuades the fact finder that its reasons were nondiscriminatory, the employer prevails.
503 N.W.2d at 229. The Schweigert opinion confirmed this effect by its holding:
Although it is apparent that the trial court analyzed the case under the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine formula, which we have concluded is, in part, inconsistent with State law, we believe that no error resulted because the trial court clearly found that Provident Life established by a preponderance of the evidence that its decision to terminate Martin’s employment was based upon legitimate, economic reasons not laced with discriminatory motives.
*384Id. The jury should be instructed that, if it finds the employer’s explanation incredible, it should conclude that the employer illegally discriminated on the basis of age.
While Schweigert was gender discrimination, and this case is age discrimination, North Dakota has a unitary Human Rights Act for all discriminatory employment practices. On the other hand, the federal enactments on discrimination are fragmented, separate, and often differently construed for different kinds of discrimination. Thus, distinct federal precedents on age discrimination are of minimal value in interpreting North Dakota’s unitary Human Rights Act. For that principal reason, I disagree with that part of the majority opinion that shifts the effect of the North Dakota presumption in an age discrimination case towards the federal effects in its separate category of age discrimination cases.
Nor do I agree that on remand the trial court should instruct on the at-will doctrine embodied in NDCC 34-03-01, part of a separate chapter. In a case under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, it simply is not true that an employee “can be let go for any reason or no reason,” as NDHA advanced in its requested instruction. The at-will doctrine is unrelated to employment discrimination. The Human Rights Act prohibits employment decisions “because of ... age” and much more.
It is a discriminatory practice for an employer ... to discharge an employee ... because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, status with respect to marriage or public assistance, or participation in lawful activity off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.
NDCC 14-02.4-03. An employee can be discharged only for a non-discriminatory reason. In this case, the questions of fact on remand involve whether NDHA discriminated against the claimants by terminating them because of age. NDHA must justify its action with a credible non-discriminatory reason, not just “any reason” or “no reason.”
Because I do not join in all of the majority opinion in reversing and remanding, I concur in the result only.