JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting, USA Powerlifting Minnesota, on Related Appeal ...
Case Details
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- summary judgment
- State
- Washington
- Circuit
- 9th Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Plaintiff Shawna McIntire's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was granted on her claims of VAWA violation, procedural due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, breach of contract, and conversion against Housing Authority of Snohomish County.
Excerpt
1. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act's (MHRA) protection of transgender individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 44 (2018), a policy that expressly prohibits transgender women from competing in the women's division of a powerlifting competition is facially discriminatory and constitutes direct evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation under the MHRA's prohibition against business discrimination and discrimination by places of public accommodation, found at Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, 363A.17 (2018). 2. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether seeking to ensure competitive fairness in an athletic competition satisfies the legitimate business purpose defense for sexual orientation and sex discrimination in business under Minn. Stat. § 363A.17 (2018) of the MHRA that forecloses partial summary judgment for the plaintiff as to liability on this claim. 3. In the absence of any alleged statutory exemption or defense, the district court properly granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the claim of sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations. 4. Our holding in Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001), is limited to claims of sexual orientation discrimination under the MHRA related to employment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Similar Rulings
Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.