Meads v Best Oil Co.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

The ACLU-MN filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in this important case involving interpretation of Minnesota anti-discrimination laws. The case involved the question of whether an employer can escape liability for discriminatory failure to hire based on evidence that they discover after the discriminatory decision, which would render the applicant ineligible for employment. In this case, the African-American plaintiff alleged that he was passed over for employment when two less-qualified white people were hired for the job for which he applied. After he filed his discrimination claim, the employer discovered that he lied on his application by stating that he had never been convicted of a felony when he actually had been convicted of a felony ten to twelve years before. The District Court held that after-acquired would have disqualified him from employment; therefore, the plaintiff's claim is barred. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the ACLU submitted its brief in late June.

In its brief, the ACLU-MN argued that the "after acquired evidence doctrine" should not be applied to bar a discrimination claim because it undermines the nature of anti-discrimination laws. To allow discriminatory conduct to escape redress simply because the employer finds newly discovered reasons that might have justified their decision would reward employers who are engaged in discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court came to this conclusion over ten years ago in a case called McKennon v Nashville Banner Publishing Company. The Court a complete bar to recovery for discrimination but did recognize that the amount of damages could be limited based on the after-acquired evidence. Because courts are not bound by federal court decisions when they interpret our state Human Rights Act, the district court in this case relied on a pre-McKennon case to find that in Minnesota, after acquired evidence can bar a discrimination claim.

Updates

October 2006 the case was argued in front of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court ruled on the plaintiffs' side, which would allow him to futher puruse his discrimination claim. The defendants appealed the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court and are awaiting a decision.

Legal Documents