Court Opinion

ID: 9670648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:56.230554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.834377
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the court’s use of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to foreclose any examination of an employee’s disparate treatment discrimination claim.1
Collateral estoppel should only be applied to an issue identical to that raised in a prior adjudication. Graham v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 472 N.W.2d 114,116 (Minn.1991). The court today concludes collateral estoppel bars an employee from demonstrating he was qualified for the position from which he was discharged, as required in a claim alleging discrimination, because the issue of his fitness for the position was already determined in his termination hearing under Minn.Stat. § 125.12(8), (9) (1992). A determination that an employee is objectively unfit for a position is not identical to a determination on whether an employee can make out a prima facie case of discrimination.
The court cites Hubbard v. United Press Int’l., 330 N.W.2d 428, 442 (Minn.1983), for the proposition that proof of racial discrimination in the workplace requires a showing that the plaintiff was qualified for the position. Standing alone, however, that showing does not shed any light on whether an employer has engaged in impermissible disparate treatment discrimination. That is because “[t]he crux of a disparate treatment claim involving an employer’s decision to discharge an employee is that the employer is treating that employee less favorably than others on the basis of an impermissible classification.” Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 442. Thus, an employee with a discrimination claim should only be required to show he was as qualified as other employees in a similar position who were not members of a protected class and who were not discharged for similar conduct. Shockency v. Jefferson Lines, 439 N.W.2d 715, 719 (Minn.1989) (“The test [for establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination] may be met by demonstrating that a minority employee was discharged and-a non-minority employee was retained under apparently similar circumstances.” (citation omitted)). Otherwise, an employer could require protected class members to meet objectively higher qualification standards than nonmembers of the protected class — a result directly in conflict with the goals of anti-discrimination legislation.
In this case, the hearing examiner did not consider the identical issue to that raised as a *740part of the employee’s prima facie case of discrimination. The hearing examiner was only asked to determine whether the employee was objectively unfit to be a teacher due to his misconduct. The hearing examiner was not asked, and did not answer the question of whether the employee was as qualified to teach as other teachers who were not members of a protected class and who were not discharged for similar conduct.2
The question left unanswered here is whether the school board applied the same criteria to all teachers. Does the school district dismiss all abusive teachers or only those abusive teachers who are members of a protected class? Clearly, teacher abuse of any student is unacceptable. It is equally unacceptable, however, for an employer to select for discipline only those teachers who are members of a protected class.
In Graham, we said that collateral estoppel is “ ‘a flexible doctrine, the focus is on whether its application would work an injustice on the party against whom the estoppel is urged.’” Id. at 120 (quoting Johnson v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 608, 613-14 (Minn.1988)). The doctrine’s flexibility should not be used to frustrate justice by allowing claims of discrimination to escape judicial review. Based on today’s ruling, an employee who has been subjected to blatant discrimination would be forever precluded from having his or her discrimination claim reviewed.
Collateral estoppel should not be used if to do so would frustrate the just treatment of others. The court’s decision also deprives a person of judicial review where that person failed to meet the qualifications for the position solely because of the employer’s discrimination, a situation distinct from Villarreal’s. Further, beyond the interests of the complainant, an independent review of the discrimination claim protects the interests of all of the employer’s employees because they also have an interest in a work environment free from discrimination. A “sensible and fair application of collateral estoppel” would not result in foreclosing review of a disparate treatment discrimination claim. Graham,, 472 N.W.2d at 120.

. The record before us does not provide information one way or the other as to whether the employee here has a valid disparate treatment discrimination claim. Indeed, if the claim was reviewed, it might well be determined to be mer-itless.

. Indeed, under Minn.Stat. § 125.12(8), (9) (1992), the hearing examiner was prohibited from considering issues raised by Villarreal's discrimination claim.