230 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 1975), 45436, Zimdars v. Special School Dist. No. 1

Docket Nº:45436.
Citation:230 N.W.2d 465, 304 Minn. 288
Opinion Judge:The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
Party Name:S. Ruth ZIMDARS, Appellant, v. SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent.
Attorney:S. Ruth Zimdars, pro se, for appellant.
Case Date:May 30, 1975
Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 465

230 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 1975)

304 Minn. 288

S. Ruth ZIMDARS, Appellant,

v.

SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent.

No. 45436.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 30, 1975

S. Ruth Zimdars, pro se.

Lindquist & Vennum and Jerrold F. Bergfalk, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

PER CURIAM.

This proceeding comes to this court for review of a decision of the District Court of Hennepin County confirming findings [304 Minn. 289] and conclusions of a hearing examiner appointed by the Human Rights Department, State of Minnesota. The matter arises out of a complaint filed by appellant, Ms. S. Ruth Zimdars, a longtime mathematics teacher in the Minneapolis school system, alleging that she was discriminated against by the School Board of Special School District No. 1 in refusing to hire her in an administrative position because of her sex. The Human Rights Department, pursuant to the provisions of Minn.St. c. 363, investigated the matter and determined that there was probable cause to believe that the respondent district had committed discriminatory practices in violation of § 363.03. After conciliation efforts failed, the matter was referred to a hearing examiner. The hearing examiner, after finding favorably to appellant on two legal issues, found respondent did not discriminate against appellant by reason of her sex and, accordingly, respondent did not violate § 363.03, subd. 1. The district court, on review, confirmed this decision.

A significant portion of the hearing officer's memorandum states as follows:

'Without expressing in detail all of the evidence and testimony, it is quite clear to the Examiner that Ms. Zimdars was asking for the creation for herself of a special internship in the central office. The testimony by Ms. Zimdars herself, as well as that by Dr. Kaye and Mr. Ober, indicated that there had never been an internship created at the request of any person, male or female; and that internships had been created only at such time as there had been an express need for the same and funding for the position. * * *

'Testimony by Ms. Zimdars herself is revealing as to her attitude toward the central office administrative internships to the exclusion of other possible and available avenues for moving into secondary school administration. For example, * * * she stated:

Page 466

[304 Minn. 290] "I asked to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP