Legal Opinion
Kraft, Inc. v. State
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 14, 1979No. 48906PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHERAN, Chief Justice.
This appeal by the Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights arises from an order of the district court of Ramsey County. The district court held that a nepotism employment policy adopted by respondent Kraft, Inc. does not violate Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1 (1978) proscribing employment discrimination based on marital status. Petitioner contests this determination. We reverse.
Gloria Scheid, Marlene Kraus, Kathy Pet-terson and Elaine Pregler, part-time employees of the Kraft, Inc. plant at New Ulm, Minnesota, sought more desirable full-time positions with the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Loving v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Mary Burke Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1971
- Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Washington Water Power Co. v. Washington State Human Rights CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1996
- Miller v. C a Muer Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Donato v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2000
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.