Court Opinion

ID: 9720351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:27:02.462902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.407779
License: Public Domain

DAVIES, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
I probably have little objection to the legal analysis of the majority. But my reading of the record is so different from that of the majority that I cannot tell for sure.
In any event, as I read the record, there are several material issues of fact that make summary judgment inappropriate. See Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn.1995) (“Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact * * ⅜.”). For example, although other employees had reported the firm’s practice of imposing a surcharge for telephone calls, in effect secretly reducing employee compensation, it was still continuing at the time appellant questioned the practice. The surcharge on client billings also continued, and this raised a question of fair dealing with a group of which appellant was not a member. In addition, the complexity of the allegedly discriminatory practices precludes summary judgment.
That I dissent represents no conclusion as to the merits of appellant’s claim.