| 1:30pm | Thursday, October 23, 2008 | ||||||
| 20070005 |
George A. Ellis, Plaintiff and Appellee
v. North Dakota State University, Defendant and Appellant | ||||||
| Appeal from: | East Central Judicial District, Cass County, Judge Steven L. Marquart | ||||||
| Nature of Action: | Employer/Employee Dispute | ||||||
| Counsel: |
| ||||||
| Issues: |
Appellant's Statement of the Issues: I. Can an age inquiry relative to retirement plans, asked by a non-decision maker more than three years prior to the employment decision was made, prove intentional employment discrimination? II. Does the North Dakota Human Rights Act require an employer to prove "good cause" for an employee's discharge? May a court as a trier of fact ignore the employer's stated reasons for an employee's dismissal and instead review items of performance it believes may or may not demonstrate cause for dismissal? III.Does a plaintiff's demonstration he was performing at an acceptable level as part of his proof of a prima facie case also result in a finding of pretext? IV. Should the State of North Dakota be estopped from raising and asserting statute of limitations, where a state employee agrees to receive a summons and complaint, and an admission of service form, but specifically indicates the date will be left open with the documents sent to the State Risk Management Division, given the clear requirements of Rule 4 of North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D.C.C. 32-12.2-04(5)? V. Is the application of administrative res judicata and/or collateral estoppel foreclosed where a statutory right to appeal is not provided under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32, but where judicial review nevertheless remains available? VI. May a district court award unlimited damages for future lost wages and benefits under the Human Rights Act given the clear and limited statutory remedies provided in N.D.C.C. 14-02.4-20? VII. Does the duty to exercise reasonable diligence in securing alternative earnings require an employee to seek and accept employment outside of his chosen field? May Plaintiff recover back pay and "front pay" when he has not actively sought employment since shortly after filing the Complaint? Appellee's Statement of the Issues: I. Whether the trial court's determination that NDSU was equitably estopped to assert the defense of statute of limitations is clearly erroneous. II. Whether the trial court's determination that plaintiff established his prima facie case of age discrimination under the North Dakota Human's Rights Act is clearly erroneous. III. Whether the trial court's application of the burden shifting analysis in this age discrimination case was clearly erroneous. IV. Whether the trial court's repeated determinations that neither administrative res judicata nor collateral estoppel have application to this case were clearly erroneous. V. Whether the district court's award of damages including back pay, front pay, attorney's fees and costs was clearly erroneous. | ||||||
| Briefs: |
| ||||||
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/12/2008 | |||||||