This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs.
Public Employee Equal Protection Claim: The Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3 focuses on a specific legal claim known as the Public Employee Equal Protection Claim. This claim arises when a public employee alleges race and/or sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment. In such cases, the claimant asserts that their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law have been violated by their employer. To establish this claim, several elements need to be proven, including: 1. Presence of Employment Relationship: The claimant must establish that they were a public employee and therefore subject to the protections provided by the Equal Protection Clause. 2. Discriminatory Conduct: The claimant needs to demonstrate that they were subjected to unwelcome conduct based on their race and/or sex. This conduct can include offensive comments, derogatory remarks, acts of exclusion or isolation, or any other action creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. 3. Severe or Pervasive Conduct: It is necessary to prove that the discriminatory conduct was both severe or pervasive, meaning that the actions were not minor or isolated incidents, but rather persistent and impactful enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment. 4. Employer Liability: The claimant must establish that the employer is responsible for the discriminatory conduct. This liability can be established through various theories, including direct participation by the employer, negligence in addressing complaints, or ratification of the conduct. Separate Liability: Under the Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3, the concept of separate liability is recognized in cases involving a Public Employee Equal Protection Claim based on race and/or sex discrimination in a hostile work environment. Separate liability refers to the individual liability of supervisors, managers, or other employees who participated in or knew about the discriminatory conduct and failed to take appropriate action to prevent or address it. Types of Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3 Public Employee Equal Protection Claim Race and/or Sex Discrimination Hostile Work Environment — Separate Liability: While the content focuses on the general framework of a Public Employee Equal Protection Claim, specific variations may exist depending on the circumstances of each case. These variations can include factors such as the intensity and pervasiveness of the discriminatory conduct, the involvement of specific individuals, and the employer's response to complaints. Different types or variations of the instruction may address various specific scenarios, such as: 1. Supervisor Liability: When a specific supervisor or manager is directly involved in the discriminatory conduct or fails to address the complaint adequately. 2. Coworker Liability: In cases where the hostile work environment is primarily created by fellow employees, without direct involvement or negligence on the part of a supervisor or manager. 3. Employer Negligence: Instances where the employer, as a whole, can be held liable due to negligence in prevention, investigation, or response to complaints of a hostile work environment. These types or variations of the jury instruction allow for consideration of the specific circumstances of each public employee's claim, ensuring a fair and just evaluation of the case.
Public Employee Equal Protection Claim: The Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3 focuses on a specific legal claim known as the Public Employee Equal Protection Claim. This claim arises when a public employee alleges race and/or sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment. In such cases, the claimant asserts that their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law have been violated by their employer. To establish this claim, several elements need to be proven, including: 1. Presence of Employment Relationship: The claimant must establish that they were a public employee and therefore subject to the protections provided by the Equal Protection Clause. 2. Discriminatory Conduct: The claimant needs to demonstrate that they were subjected to unwelcome conduct based on their race and/or sex. This conduct can include offensive comments, derogatory remarks, acts of exclusion or isolation, or any other action creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. 3. Severe or Pervasive Conduct: It is necessary to prove that the discriminatory conduct was both severe or pervasive, meaning that the actions were not minor or isolated incidents, but rather persistent and impactful enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment. 4. Employer Liability: The claimant must establish that the employer is responsible for the discriminatory conduct. This liability can be established through various theories, including direct participation by the employer, negligence in addressing complaints, or ratification of the conduct. Separate Liability: Under the Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3, the concept of separate liability is recognized in cases involving a Public Employee Equal Protection Claim based on race and/or sex discrimination in a hostile work environment. Separate liability refers to the individual liability of supervisors, managers, or other employees who participated in or knew about the discriminatory conduct and failed to take appropriate action to prevent or address it. Types of Minnesota Jury Instruction — 1.1.3 Public Employee Equal Protection Claim Race and/or Sex Discrimination Hostile Work Environment — Separate Liability: While the content focuses on the general framework of a Public Employee Equal Protection Claim, specific variations may exist depending on the circumstances of each case. These variations can include factors such as the intensity and pervasiveness of the discriminatory conduct, the involvement of specific individuals, and the employer's response to complaints. Different types or variations of the instruction may address various specific scenarios, such as: 1. Supervisor Liability: When a specific supervisor or manager is directly involved in the discriminatory conduct or fails to address the complaint adequately. 2. Coworker Liability: In cases where the hostile work environment is primarily created by fellow employees, without direct involvement or negligence on the part of a supervisor or manager. 3. Employer Negligence: Instances where the employer, as a whole, can be held liable due to negligence in prevention, investigation, or response to complaints of a hostile work environment. These types or variations of the jury instruction allow for consideration of the specific circumstances of each public employee's claim, ensuring a fair and just evaluation of the case.