State by McClure v. Sports and Health Club, Inc.
| Citation | 370 N.W.2d 844 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | CX-84-936,Nos. C4-84-771,s. C4-84-771 |
| Parties | 37 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1463, 37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,227 In the Matter of the STATE of Minnesota, by Marilyn E. McCLURE, and her successor, Irene Gomez-Bethke, Commissioner, Department of Human Rights, Respondent (C4-84-771) Relator, (), v. SPORTS AND HEALTH CLUB, INC., d.b.a. St. Louis Park Sports and Health Club, et al., Relators, (C4-84-771) Respondents, (). Nos. C4-84-771, . |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.01 (1983) et seq., facially and as applied does not violate an employer's rights of free speech, free exercise of religion or freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution.
2. Sole owners of a corporation which engaged in discriminatory employment practices are not liable as accessories under Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 6, when the owners were the ones who discriminated and where the "corporate veil" was pierced by the hearing examiner in personally enjoining them from continuing those practices.
3. In determining whether to certify a class in a class action, the hearing examiner is limited to considering only the factors set forth in Minn.Rule 5000.1100 (1983).
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth V. Cutter, St. Paul, for State, et al.
Clyde F. Anderson, Minneapolis, for Sports and Health Club, Inc.
Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.
In this action against appellants Sports and Health Club, Inc. (Sports and Health) 1 the respondent, the acting Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (Commissioner) sought to enjoin certain actions of the appellants. These actions consisted of questioning prospective employees about marital status and religion; terminating employees because of a difference in religious beliefs; refusing to promote employees because of differing religious beliefs; and failing to provide "open" public accommodations. The matter was heard by a hearing examiner who found that, in fact, appellants had engaged in the asserted practices in violation of Minn.Stat. ch. 363 (1983) (Minnesota Human Rights Act). The hearing examiner enjoined continuation of those practices. Throughout these proceedings, appellants have asserted that the Minnesota Human Rights Act, facially and as applied, unconstitutionally infringes upon their rights of freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association. In addition, appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the hearing officer's findings and conclusions of law, and the hearing examiner's order certifying classes, which they claim violates the same constitutional rights. The respondent Commissioner challenges the hearing examiner's order refusing to certify certain classes. Since we conclude that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does not impermissibly infringe upon appellants' constitutional rights, either facially or as applied to appellants, we affirm the hearing examiner. Because the class certification was unduly narrow in scope, we reverse the class certification order. 2
Arthur Owens, Marc Crevier and Forest Larson own and operate Sports and Health Club, Inc., a closely-held, for-profit Minnesota corporation. Sports and Health Club, Inc. operates seven sports and health club operations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Each provides recreational and exercise facilities as well as counseling regarding appropriate exercise programs for 18,000 members. Approximately 140 to 150 people are currently employed by the clubs. The parties agree that the clubs' facilities are excellent, described by some as the "Cadillac of the industry," and that membership dues are generally lower than those of the competition in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.
Owens, Crevier and Larson are "born-again" Christians. Their fundamentalist religious convictions require them to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the will of God in their business as well as in their personal lives. These convictions are deeply held, supported in Biblical scripture, and sincere. 3
The owners of Sports and Health admit their religious practices and beliefs spill over into, and in fact require, their employment practices. These practices consist of questioning prospective employees about marital status and religion, terminating other employees because of a difference in religious beliefs; refusing to promote employees because of differing religious beliefs; and failing to provide "open" accommodations. In some instances the practices were found illegal by the hearing examiner. In other instances, no allegations of illegality were asserted. In the operation of the clubs, the owners share an evangelical fervor to proselytize or convert others to their beliefs. The owners place book racks in the entrance of each club containing Christian literature. The state claimed no illegal conduct based on this action.
Interviews of all prospective employees, with the exception of locker-room attendants and babysitters, are conducted in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(4)(a) (1982). 4 In those interviews, applicants were asked whether they attend church, read the Bible, are married or divorced, pray, engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sexual relations, believe in God, heaven or hell, and other questions of a religious nature. Sports and Health explains this practice as an attempt to advise prospective employees, during the interview, of the existence of the owners' fervent beliefs to determine whether their sincerely held beliefs may offend the prospective employee. Moreover, Sports and Health believes the answers to the questions will help the owners determine if the applicant (1) possesses a "teachable spirit" and (2) follows a "disciplined life style."
Sports and Health admits that only born-again Christians are permitted to be managers or assistant managers. The hearing examiner found this practice to be illegal under the Human Rights Act. Sports and Health justifies this rigid policy by relying on their religious belief that they are forbidden by God, as set forth in the Bible, to work with "unbelievers." (See 2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Sports and Health also admits that Bible studies are a substantial part of weekly meetings for managers. Voluntary Bible studies are also held for all sales personnel.
Finally, based on an interpretation of the Bible, Sports and Health will not hire, and will fire, individuals living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex; a young, single woman working without her father's consent or a married woman working without her husband's consent; a person whose commitment to a non-Christian religion is strong; and someone who is "antagonistic to the Bible," which according to Galations 5:19-21 includes fornicators and homosexuals. The hearing examiner found this practice to be in violation of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2) (1984). 5 Sports and Health defended its hiring and firing actions on individual violations of rigid work rules based on the Bible (requiring a high degree of discipline and submissiveness), 6 "backbiting" and "non-joyful" attitude on the part of the employee, and in the case of applicants not hired, on the lack of a "teachable spirit" and "disciplined lifestyle," which the owners maintain are more important than a technical background in sales, exercise and/or nutrition.
Appellants assert the sincere belief that their practices were proper and lawful exercises of the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution. This assertion forms the main contention in this case.
Despite all the discrimination allegations asserted in this case Sports and Health has employed, and continues to employ, married persons, male and female unmarried persons, and divorced males and females of various races. The Sports and Health clubs have also employed, and continue to employ, persons of various religious faiths--Jews, Roman Catholics, Protestants of various denominations, and others--so long as such other persons are not offended by the owners' faith, are not antagonistic toward the Christian gospel and will comply with management's work rules in a cheerful and obedient spirit.
(1) We address first the pending motions to dismiss.
(a) The Commissioner contends that Sports and Health's appeal from the hearing examiner's orders (C4-84-771) should be dismissed with respect to liability and class certification because the appeals are not from orders from which an appeal may be taken since they are not final within the meaning of Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.03. We need not address the issue in this case. We choose to grant discretionary review of the issues raised by Sports and Health's appeal because this is one of those "appropriate cases where the interest of justice requires immediate review of liability determinations before the issue of damages has been litigated." In re Commodore Hotel Fire & Explosion Case, 318 N.W.2d 244, 247, n. 2 (Minn.1982), see also Sigler v. First American National Bank, 325 N.W.2d 136, 137, n. 1 (Minn.1982). Sports and Health's appeal is before this court because we granted accelerated review. Rule 118 of Minn.R.Civ.App.P., providing for accelerated review, incorporates by reference the discretionary review found in Rule 117. The issues have been fully briefed in an adversarial proceeding. The interest of justice, in deciding all issues arising from the hearing examiner's order in one proceeding, compels us to the conclusion that discretionary review should be granted, and, accordingly, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is denied.
(b) Sports and Health...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
-
State v. DeLaBruere
... ... health including the effects of tobacco, alcoholic drinks, and ... Pringle v. Heritage Baptist Temple, Inc., 236 Kan. 544, 546-47, 693 P.2d 1163, 1165-66 (1985) ... afforded by the First Amendment); 12 State by McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, 851-53 ... ...
- State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.
-
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., C-9556
... ... a ruling that statutes empowering two state administrative agencies to levy civil penalties ... for this legislation was to protect public health and welfare by regulating the "collection, ... W.2d 855, 863 (Tex.1965); California Prods., Inc. v. Puretex Lemon Juice, Inc., 160 Tex. 586, 334 ... to "cases" and "controversies." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731, 92 S.Ct. 1361, ... P.2d 796, 798-99 (Utah 1986); State by McClure v. Sports and Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, ... ...
-
Freedom of speech, permissible tailoring and transcending strict scrutiny.
...McLeod v. Providence Christian Sch., 408 N.W.2d 146, 151 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987); State by McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, 852 (Minn. 1985). (138) Cf. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 628-29 (concluding that in prohibiting discriminatory practices "in the distribution of public......
-
A decade after Smith: an examination of the New York Court of Appeals' stance on the free exercise of religion in relation to Minnesota, Washington, and California.
...which is a product of federal doctrine, for guidance in applying the Minnesota Constitution); State v. Sports and Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844, 851 (Minn. 1985) (applying a compelling interest analysis to determine whether "an individual's action, exercised under first amendment guaran......