LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P.A.
| Decision Date | 05 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | A15-0396 |
| Citation | 892 N.W.2d 506 |
| Parties | Nicole LAPOINT, Respondent, v. FAMILY ORTHODONTICS, P.A., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Steven A. Smith, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.
Marshall H. Tanick, Teresa J. Ayling, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, Edina, Minnesota, for appellant.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Margaret Jacot, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights.
Douglas A. Micko, Marisa C. Katz, Brian Rochel, Teske Micko Katz Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Frances E. Baillon, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association-Minnesota Chapter.
Leslie L. Lienemann, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Justin D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis Minnesota, for amicus curiae Employee Lawyers Association of the Upper Midwest.
Jill R. Gaulding, Lisa C. Stratton, Christy L. Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Gender Justice.
Margaret R. Ryan, Jacalyn N. Chinander, Meagher & Geer, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and William J. Davidson, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association.
The question presented in this case is whether appellant, Family Orthodontics, P.A., discriminated against respondent Nicole LaPoint. LaPoint applied for a job with Family Orthodontics and Family Orthodontics' owner, Dr. Angela Ross, offered LaPoint a job as an orthodontic assistant. After LaPoint told Dr. Ross that she was pregnant, and they discussed the amount of leave available for LaPoint's pregnancy, Family Orthodontics rescinded its job offer. LaPoint sued Family Orthodontics for sex discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. § 363A.01 -.44 (2016), claiming that Family Orthodontics discriminated against her because of her pregnancy. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Family Orthodontics, concluding that Dr. Ross's decision was not discriminatory. The court of appeals reversed, ruling as a matter of law that Family Orthodontics had discriminated against LaPoint. Because we conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous but that faulty legal reasoning may have impacted the findings, we reverse and remand.
This action arises from LaPoint's application to work as an orthodontic assistant at Family Orthodontics. Family Orthodontics is a small orthodontics clinic that Dr. Angela Ross owns and operates. In early 2013, Family Orthodontics had a job opening for an orthodontic assistant. LaPoint is an experienced orthodontic assistant and an employee at the clinic recommended LaPoint for the position. Dr. Ross reached out to LaPoint and asked her to interview. Dr. Ross interviewed LaPoint on the evening of Friday, March 22, 2013. The parties agree that the interview went well. LaPoint requested pay of $25-$27 per hour and two weeks of vacation time. Dr. Ross did not ask LaPoint whether she was pregnant, and the topic of pregnancy did not come up.
Dr. Ross then left for a family vacation out of state. On Sunday, March 24, two days after the interview, Dr. Ross left LaPoint a voicemail offering her the job. Later that day, LaPoint called Dr. Ross and accepted the offer. During that conversation, LaPoint told Dr. Ross that she was pregnant and due in October.
Dr. Ross congratulated LaPoint and said that she was happy for her. Dr. Ross asked LaPoint if she intended to return to work after giving birth; LaPoint said that she did. Dr. Ross asked her how much maternity leave she had taken after the birth of her first child, and LaPoint said that she had taken 12 weeks. Dr. Ross inferred that LaPoint would want 12 weeks of leave for her upcoming birth, and told LaPoint that Family Orthodontics had a policy of allowing no more than 6 weeks of maternity leave. LaPoint responded that she might be willing to take a shorter leave, and said that she would consider 10 weeks.
On March 25, the morning after LaPoint called to accept the job, Dr. Ross left a voicemail for LaPoint. In the voicemail, Dr. Ross stated that she "did not sleep very well" the night before, and that she was "not going to offer [LaPoint] the job just yet" because she needed "a couple more days to figure this out." Dr. Ross also said:
Frankly, two things really kept me from sleeping well. One of them is why you didn't tell me on Friday that you were pregnant, I'm just I just can't figure that piece out.... And the other thing is that I have to make sure that after training you for six months, that you going on leave for three months is not going to disrupt the practice.
Dr. Ross said that she was going to put the job offer "on hold." She invited LaPoint to contact her if she had "some answers to those two concern[s]."
Later that same morning, Family Orthodontics reposted an ad on Craigslist for the orthodontic assistant position. Dr. Ross later testified that she posted the ad in order to seek additional candidates in the event that LaPoint was not hired.
LaPoint responded by e-mail to Dr. Ross's voicemail, explaining that she had not told Dr. Ross about the pregnancy at the interview because it was still in an early stage, and she had not even told her family yet. LaPoint wrote that she had disclosed the pregnancy after accepting the offer as "the action of a loyal employee who has the office's best interest at heart." She assured Dr. Ross that she planned to return to work after the birth. LaPoint did not discuss the length of the leave in this e-mail.
The next day, Dr. Ross sent an e-mail to LaPoint. She wrote: First, Dr. Ross said that she was "confused" about why LaPoint told her about the pregnancy after the job offer "but did not say anything during [their] face to face interview" on Friday. Second, she stated that employees at Family Orthodontics "typically take off 6 weeks" for maternity leave, and she was not sure that "a small practice" like hers could handle LaPoint's "requested 12 weeks off." Dr. Ross thanked LaPoint for her email and wrote that she would "be in touch" when she returned from vacation. The following day, LaPoint sent Dr. Ross a short email stating that she "look[ed] forward to speaking with [Dr. Ross] on the telephone upon [her] return from vacation to clarify the two points."
Dr. Ross did not call or send another e-mail to LaPoint. She testified that she was very busy after vacation, and that hiring "wasn't on [her] radar." LaPoint did not contact Dr. Ross again because she believed that "the ball was in [Dr. Ross's] court." In May, Dr. Ross eventually filled the orthodontic assistant position, hiring a recent graduate who had previously interned at Family Orthodontics. The new hire was not pregnant.
In the course of the communications described above, Dr. Ross made a number of notations on a copy of LaPoint's resume. Around the time LaPoint told Dr. Ross that she was pregnant, Dr. Ross wrote "Pregnant?! " and "Due 10/13!" on the resume. After she left the voicemail indicating that the job offer was "on hold," Dr. Ross wrote:
LaPoint sued Family Orthodontics under the MHRA, asserting that she was denied employment because of her pregnancy.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but the district court, concluding that there were material issues of fact, denied both motions and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.
At trial, Dr. Ross testified that she did not rescind the offer because LaPoint was pregnant. She testified that the decision Dr. Ross stated that she interpreted LaPoint's offer to consider 10 weeks of leave as a refusal to accept the clinic's 6-week maternity leave policy. As a result, she withdrew the offer because a 10- or 12-week leave would not be "tenable" in her practice.
Dr. Ross also testified that she was concerned about LaPoint's failure to disclose the pregnancy during the interview because she would have preferred to discuss the policy at the interview, along with other leave issues. She stated that, had LaPoint been "forthright" about her maternity leave request, they could have determined earlier in the process that LaPoint was not a good fit for the clinic and that she needed to work for a bigger clinic to get the leave that she wanted. Dr. Ross's husband also testified and corroborated her testimony. In addition, several employees at Family Orthodontics testified that maternity leave was always difficult at the clinic and 12 weeks leave would have been too much to accommodate.
LaPoint also testified. She testified that she never demanded 12 weeks of maternity leave, and that she told Dr. Ross during the March 25 phone call that she would be willing to return to work more quickly than 12 weeks. But she did acknowledge on cross-examination that she "wanted or intended or anticipated" 12 weeks of leave. LaPoint also said that Dr. Ross did not tell her the clinic had a policy of allowing only 6 weeks of maternity leave or that the offer was contingent on her acceptance of taking only 6 weeks of leave.1 If Dr. Ross had done so, LaPoint said that she would have accepted the offer.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., A18-0174
...2020). The construction of the Human Rights Act's provisions is a question of law that we review de novo. LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P.A. , 892 N.W.2d 506, 513 (Minn. 2017). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here Kenneh—and we do not weigh facts or......
-
Hanson v. State
...causative factor," Anderson , 417 N.W.2d at 624, or whether discrimination "actually motivated" the decision, LaPoint v. Fam. Orthodontics, P.A. , 892 N.W.2d 506, 513 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted). But these various articulations are driving at the same standard: whether the protected whi......
-
Boldt v. N. States Power Co.
...intent—that is, that its actions were "actually motivated" by a protected trait. See LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P.A. , 892 N.W.2d 506, 513 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Goins v. W. Grp. , 635 N.W.2d 717, 722 (Minn. 2001) ). Boldt acknowledges that there is no direct evidence of discriminatory ......
-
Hanson v. State
...factor," Anderson, 417 N.W.2d at 624, or whether discrimination "actually motivated" the decision, LaPoint v. Fam. Orthodontics, P.A., 892 N.W.2d 506, 513 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted). But these various articulations are driving at the same standard: whether the protected whistleblowing ......