Legal Opinion

Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 31, 1992No. C1-91-1251PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s determination that (1) the company had notice of sexual harassment where the chief executive officer was the perpetrator of the harassment, (2) punitive damages were appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and (3) evidence of the supervisor’s treatment of other employees was admissible. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Peter Motor Company, Inc. is a closely held corporation, owned in part by Peter Lillemoe, which primarily sells new and used automobiles. In October 1988, respondent Bobbie Kay began work for Peter Motors as a…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. VinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Hubbard v. United Press International, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Sigurdson v. Isanti CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  5. Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lehmann v. Toys 'R' US, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
  2. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1993
  3. Giuliani v. Stuart Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1994
  4. Fore v. Health Dimensions, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Munro Holding, LLC v. CookCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

2 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