Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Appeal of Hardy

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 21, 2007No. 2005-529Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDuggan, J.

I concur with the majority’s decision to dismiss the Association’s cross-appeal and clarify the triggering mechanism for the mixed motive analysis under Appeal of Montpladsir, 147 N.H. 297, 300 (2001). I write separately, however, because I would uphold the DOL’s ruling that RSA 275-E:4, I (1999) does not authorize the award of attorney’s fees and expenses.

RSA 275-E:4,1, provides, in pertinent part:

[T]he labor commissioner or the designee appointed by such commissioner shall render a judgment on such matter, and shall order, as the commissioner or his designee considers appropriate,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Appeal of Bio Energy Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
  2. E. D. Swett, Inc. v. New Hampshire Commission for Human RightsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
  3. Appeal of MontplaisirSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API