Gruening v. Pinotti

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

The trial court, after denying appellant Floyd Pinotti’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, certified as important and doubtful the question of whether respondent Ronald Gruening, an alleged alcoholic, was a disabled person protected under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (1981). The court did not answer the certified question. The parties did not stipulate to facts; as a result, the trial court made no findings of fact. We remand.

FACTS

Respondent Gruening was employed by the Chisago County Sheriff. At the time of the events leading to this lawsuit, he was a…