Legal Opinion

Dodge v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 6, 1979No. 47665PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

YETKA, Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs Margaret Hankes, Mary Peterson, and Catherine Wermlund from judgment entered pursuant to an order of Ramsey County District Court, finding that defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corporation had engaged in employment practices that discriminated on the basis of sex but denying these three plaintiffs back pay and other relief on the ground that they had suffered no damages as a result of such practices. We affirm.

The issues raised on this appeal are:

1. Did the trial court err by finding that appellants were not entitled to damages (back…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Danz v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  3. Peterson v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  4. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, Lodge 364 v. State, Department of Human RightsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Markoe v. Naiditch and SonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  2. Berry v. GoetzCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  3. Bohm v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  4. Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  5. Bohm v. L.B. Hartz Wholesale Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API