Minnesota Supreme Court, 1993

McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSB

McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSB
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 17, 1993 · Keith
509 N.W.2d 365; 9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 276; 1993 Minn. LEXIS 796; 1993 WL 521081 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Richard S. Vimig, Minneapolis, for appellant., Timothy D. Kelly, David J. Duddleston, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2017, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

McGrath v. TCF BANK SAV., FSB

Cases that cite this one

34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

KEITH, Chief Justice.

We entertain review on the petition for further review filed by the plaintiff John S. McGrath for the sole purpose of clarifying the decision of the court of appeals, McGrath v. TCF Savings Bank, 502 N.W.2d 801 (Minn.App. 1993) as it defined the scope of the remand for retrial on McGrath’s retalia *366 tory discharge claim. The court of appeals concluded that the instruction given “was in error because it did not require the jury to determine whether the reasons for McGrath’s discharge offered by TCF were pretextual.” McGrath, 502 N.W.2d at 807. Its explanation for that statement, however, misstates the McDonnell-Douglas method of proof, suggesting that an employer could avoid liability even if an illegitimate reason played a role in the discharge so long as the other proffered reason was not pretextual. McGrath v. TCF Savings Bank, 502 N.W.2d 801, 807 (footnote 2). As we made clear in Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Marshall & Co., 417 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 1988), even if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason “more likely than not” motivated the discharge decision. Anderson, 417 N.W.2d at 627. See also Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. 1986).

We therefore modify the court of appeals’ decision to reflect our view that, on retrial, the jury should be instructed in accordance with the cumulative statements we have made in Anderson and Sigurdson. The petition for further review is, in all other respects, denied.

Court of appeals’ opinion modified.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.