may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Northwest Airlines, Inc.,
Filed November 18, 1997
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 964359
Carol A. Hooten, 4568 Oak Chase Road, Eagan, MN 55123 (for appellant)
Timothy R. Thornton, Eric J. Rucker, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., 2400 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Parker, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.
Appellant disputes the trial court's summary judgment dismissing his claims of (a) disability discrimination and (b) breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud. We affirm.
Appellant's discrimination claim fails because he has not shown that he belongs to a protected class. Appellant has merely shown that he has physical limitations and had one prior employment rejection in 1990. See State by Cooper v. Hennepin County, 441 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn. 1989) (holding that physical impairment is a disability only if it materially limits a major life activity, and that rejection for one specific job is not enough to make out a prima facie case of disability). Appellant has not had difficulty obtaining and retaining employment. Just three months after his initial rejection from respondent, appellant secured a job with another airline.
Even if appellant could show he was disabled, his proof of discriminatory intent fails because he cannot show he was qualified for the job at the time when he initially applied for it. There is no evidence contradicting the medical examiner's initial opinions in February 1990. When appellant obtained evidence that he was qualified, in October 1990, there was no position available for him.
Appellant's contract and promissory estoppel claims are premised on evidence that a Northwest staffing representative told him he would have to get a favorable medical report to get hired. This evidence shows a promise to consider an application but not a promise to hire. And appellant's fraud claim fails because the alleged statement dealt with a future intention to hire. See Hayes v. Northwood Panelboard Co., 415 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that no fraud existed where party promised to perform an act in the future), review denied (Minn. Jan. 28, 1988). Finally, because respondent was entitled to a summary judgment on the merits, there is no need to address appellant's motion for punitive damages.