source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PAGE, Justice. STRINGER, Justice RUSSELL, J. ANDERSON

license: Public Domain

text:
    D.M.S., Petitioner, Appellant, v. Kennedy BARBER, Defendant, The Professional Association of Treatment Homes (PATH), a non-profit Minnesota Corporation, Respondent.
    No. C8-00-2227.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    June 13, 2002.

      Patrick T. Tierney, Thomas E. McEllis-trem, Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Haugh, P.L.L.P., Saint Paul, MN, for Appellant.
    Jeanette M. Bazis, Greene Espel, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
    Barbara J. Felt, Reinhardt & Anderson, Saint Paul, MN, for Amicus Curiae.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

In August or September 1992, 13-year-old D.M.S. was placed in the home of Kennedy Barber, a foster parent supervised by the Professional Association of Treatment Homes (PATH). Approximately five months later, on February 22, 1993, D.M.S. was removed from the Barber home after D.M.S. informed a Hennepin County social worker that he felt uncomfortable in the Barber home, that Barber was sleeping with boys in his bedroom, and that Barber had asked D.M.S. if he would sleep with Barber. D.M.S. commenced an action against PATH on June 8, 1999, approximately nine months after his 19th birthday and more than six years after February 22, 1993. D.M.S. alleged that PATH negligently hired, supervised, and retained Barber as a foster parent, and also claimed that PATH was liable for Barber’s abuse under the doctrine of re-spondeat superior. The district court granted PATH’S motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run on both claims. D.M.S. appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. We granted D.M.S.’s petition for review to decide whether his claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and we now reverse and remand.

D.M.S. was born on September 10, 1979. Hennepin County placed D.M.S. in Kennedy Barber’s foster home under the supervision of PATH sometime in August or September 1992. Barber was licensed as a foster-care provider in October 1990 at the recommendation of PATH, a non-profit private agency licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide foster home placement for children unable to remain in their current living situation. In addition to placing children, PATH is responsible for supervising and evaluating foster-care homes and making recommendations to DHS regarding whether to grant or revoke foster-home licenses.

D.M.S. claims that, shortly after his placement in the Barber home, Barber began to touch him in an inappropriate manner. The touching began with uncomfortably long hugs and then moved on to kissing, fondling, and, eventually, oral sex. In a deposition, D.M.S. reported that he initially felt as though he was in a “daze” and “didn’t understand it.” Over time, D.M.S. felt “used,” “like a piece of meat or something.” He further stated that he often had a sick feeling in his stomach and “just felt bad.” At some point, D.M.S. told his mother about Barber’s conduct. On February 22, 1993, D.M.S. reported Barber’s conduct to a Hennepin County social worker and he was removed from the Barber home that day.

On June 8, 1999, D.M.S. served PATH with a summons and complaint alleging that PATH was liable for the injuries caused by the acts of sexual abuse committed by Barber. The complaint alleged that PATH was negligent in its hiring, retention, and supervision of Barber, its failure to investigate and act upon prior allegations of sexual misconduct against Barber, and its placement of D.M.S. in Barber’s care. In addition, the complaint alleged that PATH was responsible for Barber’s wrongful conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The district court granted PATH’S motion for summary judgment on the grounds that D.M.S.’s negligence-based claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a) (2000), and that his respondeat superior claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1) (2000). D.M.S. appealed and the court of appeals affirmed.

I.

On review of a summary judgment, we determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Jefferson v. Comm’r of Revenue, 631 N.W.2d 391, 394-95 (Minn.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1304, 152 L.Ed.2d 215 (2002); State ex rel. Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990). Determination of whether summary judgment was properly granted on statute of limitations grounds depends in part on construction of the implicated statutes. Ryan v. ITT Life Ins. Corp., 450 N.W.2d 126, 128 (Minn.1990). Statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review. Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 209 (Minn.2001); Ryan, 450 N.W.2d at 128.

II.

We first consider whether D.M.S.’s negligence claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Generally, personal injury actions grounded on negligence must be commenced within the six-year period of limitation provided in Minn. Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000). Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Reed Cleaners, 265 Minn. 503, 506 n. 1, 122 N.W.2d 178, 180 n. 1 (1963); see Villaume v. Wilkinson, 209 Minn. 330, 332, 296 N.W. 176, 177 (1941). Under the minority tolling statute, Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a)(1) (2000), when a negligence action accrues during a plaintiffs infancy, the plaintiff must commence the action either -within one year of reaching the age of majority or within the six-year period of limitation, whichever is later. See Anderson v. Lutheran Deaconess Hosp., 257 N.W.2d 561, 562 (Minn.1977); hanger v. Neumann, 100 Minn. 27, 29, 110 N.W. 68, 68-69 (1907).

In 1989, the legislature, recognizing the unique nature of personal injuries caused by sexual abuse, enacted what is now commonly referred to as the delayed discovery statute. Act of May 19, 1989, ch. 190, § 2, 1989 Minn. Laws 485, 486-87 (codified as amended at Minn.Stat. § 541.078 (2000)). Under the delayed discovery statute, the period of limitation for an action against a person who negligently permits sexual abuse to occur, like the period of limitation for negligence actions in general, is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subds. 2(a), 3(2) (2000). Significantly, the delayed discovery statute also provides that the six-year period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that his or her personal injury was caused by sexual abuse. Id. Interpreting this statutory language in Blackowiak v. Kemp, 546 N.W.2d 1 (Minn.1996), we observed that “as a matter of law one is ‘injured’ if one is sexually abused,” and stated that the “ultimate question” posed by the delayed discovery statute is “the time at which the complainant knew or should have known that he/she was sexually abused.” Id. at 3. This question is answered through the application of the objective, reasonable person standard. W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677, 681 (Minn.1998); Blackowiak, 546 N.W.2d at 3. Thus, to decide whether the six-year period of limitation expired before D.M.S. commenced his action against PATH on June 8, 1999, we must determine the time at which a reasonable person standing in D.M.S.’s shoes would have known he was sexually abused.

PATH argues that D.M.S. knew that he had been sexually abused no later than February 22, 1993, the date on which D.M.S. reported Barber’s misconduct to a social worker, and that D.M.S. had six years from that date to commence his action. The soundness of PATH’S argument depends on the accuracy of its assumption that it is reasonable to expect a child to understand that he or she has been the victim of sexual abuse. The legislative history and purpose of the delayed discovery statute and our prior cases interpreting the statute cast doubt on the validity of this assumption.

The legislature drafted the delayed discovery statute in response to concerns that victims of sexual abuse, particularly those victimized by someone in a position of authority and those victimized during childhood, often react to the abuse by developing psychological coping mechanisms that prevent them from commencing a legal action within the normal period of limitation for negligence or battery actions. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680 n. 5; see also Hearing on H.F. 461, H. Comm. Judiciary, Criminal Justice Div., 76th Minn. Leg., Feb. 28, 1989 (audio tape); Hearing on S.F. 315, S. Comm. Judiciary, Criminal Law Div., 76th Minn. Leg., Feb. 17, 1989 (audio tape). These coping mechanisms can take any number of forms, including feelings of denial, shame, and guilt, and repression of memories of the abuse. See Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680 n. 5 (discussing the psychological effects of childhood sexual abuse); Hearing on S.F. 315. By enacting the delayed discovery statute, the legislature sought to address this phenomenon by giving sexual abuse victims more time to recognize the abuse they suffered. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680; Hearing on H.F. 461; Hearing on S.F. 315.

We first had occasion to interpret and apply the delayed discovery statute in Blackowiak. In that case, Blackowiak alleged that he had been sexually abused by Kemp in 1970 or 1971, when Blackowiak was 11 years old. 546 N.W.2d at 2. Black-owiak commenced his action against Kemp approximately 21 years later, in 1992. Id. The sole issue on appeal was whether Blackowiak’s claim was timely under the delayed discovery statute. Id. We held that Blackowiak’s claim was barred on the ground that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Blackowiak knew of the sexual abuse more than six years before he brought suit. Id. at 3.

The court’s analysis of the facts in Blackowiak is instructive on the question of whether a victim of childhood sexual abuse can be reasonably expected to know of the abuse for purposes of the delayed discovery statute. Soon after 11-year old Blackowiak was sexually abused, he told a friend to “watch out for” Kemp because Blackowiak did not want the friend to be abused. Id. at 2. At approximately the same time, Blackowiak’s mother asked him if Kemp was doing anything “wrong” to him and Blackowiak responded in the affirmative. Id. Thus, Blackowiak, like D.M.S., appeared to acknowledge the fact that he had been sexually abused either when the abuse occurred or shortly thereafter. Yet our conclusion that a reasonable person would have known of the abuse more than six years before Blackowiak commenced his action was not a result of the statements made by Blackowiak during his infancy. Rather, we based our decision on the fact that Blackowiak demonstrated knowledge of the abuse after he reached the age of majority. Specifically, we noted that Blackowiak felt too ashamed to discuss the abuse during his adult chemical dependency treatment and psychology sessions and that Blackowiak had an angry reaction to a 1981 encounter with Kemp when Blackowiak was approximately 22 years old. Id. at 3.

We next had the opportunity to interpret the delayed discovery statute in 1998 in Bugge. In that case, W.J.L. alleged that she had been sexually abused by Bugge during a period of time beginning in March 1978, when W.J.L. was 16 years old, and ending in August 1980, when she was 19 years old. 573 N.W.2d at 679. W.J.L. did not commence her action until 1995, when she was 33 years old. As in Blackowiak, the issue before the court in Bugge was whether the claim was barred under the delayed discovery statute. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 679. We reinstated summary judgment in favor of Bugge, concluding that “a reasonable person standing in W.J.L.’s shoes would either know or have reason to know more than six years before [W.J.L.’s] lawsuit was commenced that Bugge’s alleged conduct constituted sexual abuse.” Id.

For purposes of the present case, the most significant feature of our decision in Bugge is its explicit statement of the tacit idea in Blackowiak: children are incapable of understanding that they have been sexually abused. Discussing the legislature’s purpose in enacting section 541.073, we stated that the “underlying rationale for the limitations period contained in [the delayed discovery statute] is that many sexual abuse victims, especially young children, are psychologically and emotionally unable to recognize that they have been abused.” Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680 (emphasis added). We stated:

[I]n Blackowiak, we said nothing more than that implicit in the act of sexual abuse is personal injury, and, because the two are intertwined, the victim is immediately put on notice of the causal connection between the abuse and injury. Accordingly, the statute of limitations begins to run once a victim is abused unless there is some legal disability, such as the victim’s age, or mental disability, such as repressed memory of the abuse, which would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused.

Id. at 681 (emphasis added). Put differently, a reasonable person under the legal disability of infancy is incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she has been sexually abused. The delayed discovery statute provides that the six-year period of limitation does not begin to run until a reasonable person would know of the sexual abuse. Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2(a); Blackowiak, 546 N.W.2d at 3. Thus, it follows that the six-year period of limitation does not begin to run on a cause of action arising from childhood sexual abuse until the victim reaches the age of majority.

PATH’S argument that D.M.S. knew that he was sexually abused when he was 13 years old is inapposite given our analysis of the facts in Blackowiak and our statement in Bugge that a reasonable person under the legal disability of infancy is incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she has been sexually abused. More fundamentally, PATH’S argument ignores the fact that children, unlike adults, lack the psychological, emotional, and sexual maturity necessary to fully appreciate the fact that they have been sexually abused. See Bugge, 573 N.W.2d at 680. Finally, a holding in favor of PATH would essentially erase the difference between the delayed discovery statute as it applies to negligence actions and section 541.05(5), which contains the six-year period of limitation applicable to most negligence actions. Given our holding in Blackowiak that “as a matter of law one is ‘injured’ if one is sexually abused,” 546 N.W.2d at 3, the delayed discovery statute’s six-year period of limitation for a cause of action based on childhood sexual abuse would expire when the plaintiff reached the age of 19 or six years from the date of the abuse, whichever is later. This is precisely the same result that would be reached through the application of section 541.05(5) and section 541.15(a)(1). In most cases, then, the delayed discovery statute would not provide victims of childhood sexual abuse with any additional time to commence a negligence action. Reading the delayed discovery statute in this way would defeat its purpose and render the statute meaningless for children. These considerations lead us to conclude that, as a matter of law, a reasonable child is incapable of knowing that he or she has been sexually abused and, absent some other disability that serves to delay the running of the statute of limitations, the six-year period of limitation under the delayed discovery statute begins to run when the victim reaches the age of majority.

Applying our holding to the facts of this case, we conclude that D.M.S.’s negligence claims against PATH are not barred. D.M.S. was allegedly sexually abused by Barber when he was 13 years old. With the exception of infancy, D.M.S. does not allege any disability that would prevent him from knowing of the sexual abuse. Thus, the limitations period began to run on his negligence claims on September 10, 1997, his 18th birthday. D.M.S. commenced his action on June 8, 1999, well within the delayed discovery statute’s six-year period of limitation.

III.

We next address whether D.M.S.’s respondeat superior claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Under the well-established principle of re-spondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the course and-scope of employment. Fahrendorff ex rel. Fahrendorff v. N. Homes, Inc., 597 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Minn.1999); Schneider v. Buckman, 433 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Minn.1988). Such liability stems not from any fault of the employer, but from a public policy determination that liability for acts committed within the scope of employment should be allocated to the employer as a cost of doing business. Hagen v. Burmeister & Assocs., Inc., 633 N.W.2d 497, 504 (Mmn.2001); Fahrendorff, 597 N.W.2d at 910. For purposes of the statute of limitations, a re-spondeat superior claim is the same as a cause of action against the employee who committed the tort. See Kaiser v. Mem’l Blood Ctr. of Minneapolis, Inc., 486 N.W.2d 762, 767 (Minn.1992); Grondahl v. Bulluck, 318 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Minn.1982). Citing this common law rule, D.M.S. asserts that his respondeat superior claim, based on acts of sexual abuse committed by Barber, is governed by the delayed discovery statute.

While PATH acknowledges that the statute of limitations for respondeat superior claims is generally the same as that for the underlying tort action, it argues that Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 3 (2000), creates an exception to this rule by limiting the applicability of the delayed discovery statute to two kinds of actions. Subdivision 3 provides that the delayed discovery statute “applies to an action for damages commenced against a person who caused the plaintiffs personal injury either by (1) committing sexual abuse against the plaintiff, or (2) negligently permitting sexual abuse against the plaintiff to occur.” Had the legislature intended that the delayed discovery statute apply to respondeat superior claims against the abuser’s employer, PATH argues, it would have included such claims in the list of actions enumerated in subdivision 3. Because the legislature did not do so, PATH contends that D.M.S.’s claim is governed by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(1), which provides a two-year period of limitation for battery actions.

Section 541.07(1), like section 541.073, subdivision 3, does not explicitly refer to respondeat superior claims. Indeed, none of the statutes of limitations contain an explicit reference to causes of action based on the principle of respondeat superior. See Minn.Stat. §§ 541.01-.22 (2000). Thus, were we to accept PATH’S argument and follow it to its logical conclusion, we would be forced to hold that there is no statutory period of limitation for responde-at superior claims. We cannot conclude that the legislature intended such an absurd result. See State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn.1996); Minn.Stat. § 645.17(1) (2000).

We find it more reasonable to conclude that the legislature, cognizant of the common law rule that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, respondeat superior claims are treated the same as causes of action against the employee who committed the tort, felt it unnecessary to include respondeat superior claims in section 541.073, subdivision 3. We therefore hold that respondeat superior claims arising from sexual abuse, like other respondeat superior claims, are governed by the statute of limitations that applies to the underlying tort action.

D.M.S.’s respondeat superior claim against PATH arose from acts of sexual abuse committed by Barber and is therefore governed by the delayed discovery statute. See id., subd. 3(1). Thus, D.M.S.’s respondeat superior claim, like his negligence claims, is timely and the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of PATH.

Reversed and remanded.

STRINGER, Justice

(dissenting).

While the ruling of the majority may make sense from a policy standpoint — that a child is conclusively presumed to be incapable of knowing that he or she has been sexually abused, and therefore has an additional six years after becoming an adult to bring a cause of action — that clearly is not the policy of the legislature as reflected in Minn.Stat. § 541.073 (2000). As the responsibility of the judicial branch is to apply the laws adopted by the legislature, and not selectively, I respectfully dissent. A strict statutory analysis, as outlined below, leads to the conclusion that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of PATH. Therefore I would affirm.

The limitations period for negligence actions is typically governed by Minn.Stat. § 541.05(5) (2000), but the delayed discovery statute provides a special limitations period for actions involving sexual abuse, as appellant alleges here. The delayed discovery statute provides, in relevant part:

(a) An action for damages based on personal injury caused by sexual abuse must be commenced within six years of the time the plaintiff knew or had reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse.
⅜ ⅜ # *
(d) This section does not affect the suspension of the statute of limitations during a period of disability under section 541.15.

Minn.Stat. § 541.073, subd. 2 (2000).

The error of the majority is that it basically ignores subpart (d), the legislative declaration that Minn.Stat. § 541.15 (2000), the minority tolling statute, is unaffected by the delayed discovery statute. Section 541.15 provides:

[A]ny of the following grounds of disability, existing at the time when a cause of action accrued or arising anytime during the period of limitation, shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed; provided that such period, except in the case of infancy, shall not be extended for more than five years, nor in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases:
(1) that the plaintiff is within the age of 18 years; * * *.

Minn.Stat. § 541.15(a) (2000) (emphasis added). For purposes here, the critical terms are “the period of limitation * * * shall not be extended * * * in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases.” For nearly a century, the minority tolling statute has been so interpreted — a minor has until age 18, plus one year, to commence suit for a cause of action that arose during his or her infancy. See, e.g., Anderson v. Lutheran Deaconess Hosp., 257 N.W.2d 561, 562 (Minn.1977); Voegele v. Mahoney, 237 Minn. 43, 49, 54 N.W.2d 15, 19 (1952); Langer v. Newmann, 100 Minn. 27, 29, 110 N.W. 68, 69 (1907); . see also J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17, 20-21 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).

Although the majority correctly states that “[ujnder the minority tolling statute, * * * when a negligence action accrues during a plaintiffs infancy, the plaintiff must commence the action either within one year of reaching the age of majority or within the six-year period of limitation, whichever is later,” it ignores this rule in the context of the delayed discovery statute — despite the explicit direction in section 541.073 that it is to be applied in deference to section 541.15. Instead, the majority asserts that a minor is incapable of knowing that he or she was abused at the time the abuse occurs and that the six-year period of limitation provided in section 541.073 does not begin to run until a victim of sexual abuse reaches the age of majority. As noted above, the language of the statute does not support this conclusion, nor does our case law.

In Blackowiak v. Kemp, 546 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Minn.1996), we held that “as a matter of law one is ‘injured’ if one is sexually abused” and that an “objective, reasonable person standard” applies to determine when the complainant knew or should have known that he or she was sexually abused. We reiterated this holding in W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677, 681 (Minn.1998), noting that because sexual abuse and personal injury “are intertwined, the victim is immediately put on notice of the causal connection between the abuse and injury” such that “the statute of limitations begins to run once a victim is abused” absent some disability “which would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused.”

No such disability is even claimed here. D.M.S. does not claim that he lacked competence or was under a disability due to his infancy or repressed memory; he merely asserts that under section 541.073 minor sexual abuse victims categorically have until age 25 to file a claim. In support of this argument he cites to our statement in Bugge, also cited by the majority, implying that a reasonable child is incapable of knowing that he or she has been sexually abused. But this statement was not in the context of the minority tolling statute because the joint application of the two statutes was not before the court; therefore, it is not controlling here.

The result of the interplay of sections 541.073 and 541.15, as the lower courts correctly concluded, is that a minor who has been sexually abused may bring his or her claim until age 19 (age 18 plus one year), or within six years of when the minor “knew or had reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse,” whichever is later. D.M.S. turned 19 on September 10, 1998, and February 22,1999 marked the expiration of six years from the date D.M.S. clearly demonstrated that he knew or should have known of the sexual abuse and injury — when he complained to his mother about Barber’s abuse and was removed from the house. The filing of his claim on June 8, 1999 was therefore untimely and was properly dismissed on summary judgment.

RUSSELL, J. ANDERSON

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Stringer.

      . D.M.S. alleges that he had two additional sexual encounters with Barber after he was removed from the Barber home. The district court and the court of appeals held that PATH had no duty to protect D.M.S. after he left PATH'S care on February 22, 1993. This issue is not before us.

      . D.M.S.'s complaint also named Barber as a defendant. The claims against Barber are not before us on this appeal.

      . Similarly, Justice Gardebring stated in her dissent in Blackowiak that the legislature enacted the delayed discovery statute "in recognition of the fact that injuries from sexual abuse are often psychological in nature, that they may be essentially latent for many years (at least until adolescence in most cases) and that shame and denial often accompany the events.” 546 N.W.2d at 4; see also Hearing on H.F. 461 ("[V]ictims * * * of sexual abuse often do not recognize that the abuse has occurred or discover their psychological injuries until many years after that abuse.”) (comments of Rep. Kelly, House sponsor of the bill).

      . The dissent quotes portions of this passage from Bugge, but omits the language identifying the victim's age as one of the legal disabilities that would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused. The dissent also asserts that our statement in Bugge is not controlling here because "the joint application of the [delayed discovery statute and the minority tolling statute] was not before the court [in Bugge}." Yet in Bugge, as in this case, we considered whether a claim brought by a victim of childhood sexual abuse was barred by the delayed discovery statute. Deciding such an issue necessarily involves an examination of the time at which the period of limitation begins to run and the time at which the period of limitation expires. The fact that our statement that "the statute of limitations begins to run once a victim is abused unless there is some legal disability, such as the victim’s age * * * which would make a reasonable person incapable of recognizing or understanding that he or she had been sexually abused” was made in the context of an interpretation of the delayed discovery statute, rather than the minority tolling statute or some combination of the two statutes, does not diminish its applicability here.

      . However, we also stated in Bugge that the plaintiff did not allege a disability that would have prevented her from bringing an action within six years of reaching the age of 19, not 18. 573 N.W.2d at 682. Understandably, our conflicting statements in Bugge have generated confusion as to the proper rule to apply to causes of action arising from childhood sexual abuse. Compare Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1999), with J.J. v. Luckow, 578 N.W.2d 17, 21 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. July 16, 1998). We now recognize that our statement in Bugge allowing W.J.L. six years from the date of her 19th birthday to commence her action was based on an improper application of the minority tolling statute and was, therefore, in error.

      . Section 541.07(1) states, in relevant part, that the two-year limitations period applies to actions "for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting in personal injury.”

      .Compare the language of Minn.Stat. § 541.15(b) (2000), which provides:
      In actions alleging malpractice, * * * the ground of disability specified in paragraph (a), clause (1), suspends the period of limitation until the disability is removed. The suspension may not be extended for more than seven years, or for more than one year after the disability ceases.
      (Emphasis added.) As noted in the dissent from the court of appeals’ decision in Bertram v. Poole, 597 N.W.2d 309, 315 (Minn.App.) (Foley, J., dissenting), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1999), this difference demonstrates that if the intent of the legislature was "to suspend the limitations period in paragraph (a) until the victim reaches the age of 19, after which the six-year statute of limitations would corn-mence, it would have drafted language similar to paragraph (b) evidencing such intent.”

      . As the majority points out, our statement in W.J.L. v. Bugge, 573 N.W.2d 677 (Minn.1998), that the limitations period under the delayed discovery statute would begin to run one year after a complainant reaches the age of majority was a mischaracterization of the law.

      . See Whitener ex rel. Miller v. Dahl, 625 N.W.2d 827, 832 (Minn.2001) (recognizing the significance of explicit language regarding the application of the minority tolling statute to a limitations period); see also Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2000) (providing that if a general statutory provision appears in conflict with a special statutory provision, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both).

      . The majority states that, given our ruling in Blackowiak that "as a matter of law one is 'injured' if one is sexually abused,” if the six-year delayed discovery period were deemed to commence to run before a child reaches 18 the statute would provide no additional time for children to commence an action. That may be true under some circumstances, but under no circumstances would a child have less than 6 years from the date of the injury— and that would seem to be all that the legislature intended.


author: PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.

text:
    Daniel GORDON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, Appellant.
    No. C8-01-701.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    June 13, 2002.

      Frederick W. Morris, Robert L. DeMay, David R. Crosby, Leonard, Street and Dei-nard, Minneapolis, MN, David B. Tulchin, Michael Lacovara, Justin J. Daniels, Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, Charles B. Casper, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, L.L.P., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant; Steven W. Berman, Hagens Berman, Seattle, WA, Thomas W. Burt, Richard Wallis, Steven J. Aesch-bacher, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, of counsel.
    Richard M. Hagstrom, Terrance C. Newby, Zelle, Hoffman, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Alice Mclnerney, Daniel A. Hume, Kirby Mcln-erney & Squire, L.L.P., New York City, Thomas M. Sobol, Leiff, Cabraser, Herm-ann & Bernstein, L.L.P., Boston, MA, for Respondents.
   OPINION

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice.

Microsoft Corporation appeals from a decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals denying discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01. More particularly, Microsoft asserts that the court of appeals improperly denied review of a district court order granting class certification under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23. We affirm.

On May 3, 2000, respondent Daniel Gordon commenced an action against Microsoft in Hennepin County District Court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Gordon claimed that Microsoft violated Minnesota’s antitrust law. In the complaint, Gordon alleged that he and others similarly situated purchased Microsoft operating system software when they obtained a license for the use of MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, and other Microsoft software. Gordon claimed that he and others similarly situated were damaged because they paid a higher price for the software than they would have paid in a competitive market absent Microsoft’s alleged monopoly and anti-competitive practices. Gordon asserted that the higher prices were the direct result of Mieror soft charging artificially-inflated prices to its distributors, who in turn passed the overcharges on to consumers. In September 2000, Gordon moved the court for class certification under Minn. R. Civ. P. 23. In January 2001, while this motion was pending, Gordon moved the court to amend his complaint by expanding the factual allegations and adding an additional class of purchasers as well as named plaintiffs. The court granted this motion and Gordon filed an amended complaint in February 2001, along with four other individually named plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to collectively as respondents).

Microsoft does not sell or license its operating system software directly to consumers and instead uses a multiple-level system of distributors from whom consumers ultimately obtain Microsoft products. It is undisputed that under this distribution system, respondents and other consumers similarly situated are “indirect purchasers” of Microsoft products. The parties agree that because respondents are indirect purchasers they must show that any alleged overcharge to Microsoft’s distributors was passed on to them. Respondent Gordon attempted to show that the alleged overcharges were passed on to respondents by submitting an affidavit by Dr. Keith Leffler, an authority on antitrust and economics. In his affidavit, Dr. Lef-fler purported to establish a workable economic model and methodology to establish class-wide impact and damages. Microsoft disputed the accuracy of Leffler’s model and its applicability to the facts of this case.

The district court granted respondents’ motion to certify the class. The court noted that Dr. Leffler’s methodology was hotly disputed by the parties, but found that at this preliminary stage in the proceeding the economic model appeared adequate for use at trial. The court supported its order with a 25-page memorandum specifically discussing and addressing each of Microsoft’s arguments against granting the motion.

Microsoft petitioned the court of appeals for discretionary review of the class certification order. It did so under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01. Microsoft also requested that the court of appeals certify the issue to our court for accelerated review. The court of appeals declined to exercise discretionary review. The court concluded that discretionary review was not appropriate because (1) denial of class status would not obviate all proceedings below because individual claims would remain for resolution, and (2) the specific issue regarding the calculation of damages was not a legal issue of broad applicability to the state. The court of appeals also declined to certify the issue to our court for accelerated review because it concluded that the issue was moot in light of its refusal to grant discretionary review.

We granted Microsoft’s subsequent petition for further review and we specifically ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court of appeals applied the proper standard for the exercise of discretionary review. Given the scope of the case before us and the potential issues that it might present, it is important to understand that Microsoft only petitioned from the court of appeals’ order denying discretionary review of the district court’s order. It did not petition for review of the district court’s order granting class certification to respondents. Therefore, the narrow issue before us is whether the court of appeals acted properly when it denied Microsoft’s request for discretionary review. To resolve this issue, we must determine (1) what standard of review we use to review court of appeals’ decisions whether to exercise discretionary review of an interlocutory order under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01, and (2) what standards the court of appeals should use in deciding whether to exercise discretionary review under Rule 105.01.

I.

We have not previously articulated the standard of review to be used when reviewing a court of appeals’ decision to grant or deny discretionary review of an interlocutory order under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01. However, the appropriate standard of review is evident given the nature of Rule 105.01. The court of appeals’ power to grant review under Rule 105.01 is exercised at the discretion of the court of appeals. Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01 (“the Court of Appeals may allow an appeal from an order not otherwise appealable”) (emphasis added). Therefore, it follows that we should review the court of appeals’ decision for an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we conclude that an abuse of discretion standard applies to our review of court of appeals’ decisions whether to exercise discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01.

II.

Whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying Microsoft’s petition for discretionary review depends partly on whether there are guidelines that the court of appeals should follow when making a decision to exercise discretionary review of interlocutory orders under Minn. R. Civ.App. 105.01. Generally, interlocutory appeals are disfavored and, ordinarily, only “final judgments” are appealable. See Emme v. C.O.M.B., 418 N.W.2d 176, 178-79 (Minn.1988). However, we have recognized exceptions to this general rule. Id. Class certification orders do not meet any exception and are not appealable as of right. See In re Objections and Defenses to Real Property Taxes for the 1980 Assessment, 320 N.W.2d 729, 731 (Minn.1982) (holding no appeal as of right from order denying class certification). Nevertheless, in circumstances when a specific exception does not apply and there is a compelling reason for immediate appeal, parties may petition for discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01. Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 179. Rule 105.01 provides that: “Upon the petition of a party, in the interests of justice the Court of Appeals may allow an appeal from an order not otherwise appealable * *

We have previously granted or denied discretionary review of interlocutory orders based on the specific facts of cases and thus prior case law provides little basis for generalization or broad rulemaking. See, e.g., Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 179 (noting the availability of discretionary review in “rare” cases); Price v. Amdal, 256 N.W.2d 461, 462 n. 1 (Minn.1977) (granting discretionary review because of “troublesome and vexing question”). Further, many of these cases were decided before the court of appeals was created and thus present different policy considerations for the appropriate exercise of discretionary review. Therefore, it is difficult to extract actual rules or guidelines from prior case law. Nevertheless, we are able to make two observations from these cases. First, discretionary review has been exercised under Rule 105.01 and its predecessors both by this court and the court of appeals, but our court has yet to develop general standards, or indicate that there are no standards, to guide the court of appeals when exercising such discretionary review under Rule 105.01. Second, the fact that there have been no standards developed or rules promulgated may be an indication in itself that the power of discretionary review in the interests of justice was meant to be exercised in the pure discretion of the court of appeals, without standards or guidelines or criteria that limit its discretion.

None of the parties advocate a purely discretionary standard. Respondents and the court of appeals cite Emme and Price for the proposition that discretionary review under Rule 105.01 is appropriate when (1) reversal would obviate all proceedings in the district court and (2) the ruling involves a legal issue of broad application. However, Emme does not stand for these propositions and has been misconstrued by respondents and the court of appeals. Emme dealt with interlocutory appeals certified as important and doubtful under Minn.R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(h), not discretionary review under Rule 105.01. Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 178-79. Additionally, even though Emme did discuss termination of all further proceedings in the district court as a factor in its analysis, we have since determined that the “termination” factor was not a prerequisite, but simply part of the balancing test. Jostens, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 612 N.W.2d 878, 883-84 (Minn.2000). Regardless, neither Emme nor Jostens dealt with an appeal under Rule 105.01 and, to the extent that the court of appeals cited those cases for those propositions, it was in error.

On the other hand, Price has been cited correctly and did involve discussion of an appeal under Rule 105 — albeit only in a footnote. Price, 256 N.W.2d at 462 n. 1. Although Pri.ce did not discuss termination of proceedings as a factor in granting discretionary review, the court in Price did state that the legal question was “troublesome and vexing,” implying that the legal question presented was of broad applicability and that this broad applicability was an appropriate reason to grant discretionary review. See id. at 462 n. 1. However, Price did not indicate that broad applicability was a required criterion or prerequisite to discretionary review under Rule 105.01; instead, it only implied that broad applicability was a permissible circumstance in which to exercise review.

Although Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01 is the relevant rule here, Microsoft does not focus on general standards for discretionary review under Rule 105.01, but instead it argues that we should adopt the federal standards for discretionary appellate review of class certification motions in particular. Respondents respond by arguing that the federal standards should not apply and that Minnesota’s existing “in the interests of justice” case law, in particular Emme and Price, should be used instead. But as noted earlier, under our case law there is no appeal of right from an order on a class certification motion. See In re Objections, 320 N.W.2d at 731 (holding no appeal as of right from order denying class certification). The only avenue available to appeal a class certification order is discretionary review under Rule 105.01. In re Objections, 320 N.W.2d at 731, n. 4.

Because the case law in Minnesota regarding Rule 105.01 is not very helpful and because the federal jurisprudence in this area is recent and well-developed, we first look to federal law for guidance. Drawing from federal law is especially appropriate because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for discretionary appellate review of class certification orders just as our Rule 105.01 allows discretionary review of interlocutory orders generally. Under the 1998 amendments to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23, federal courts of appeals were specifically authorized to exercise discretionary review of district court orders granting or denying class certification. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f). The advisory committee note appended to Rule 23(f) directs federal courts of appeals to “develop standards for granting review” and goes into some detail regarding appropriate considerations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f), advisory committee’s note.

The United States Supreme Court has not issued a decision regarding whether a court of appeals has abused or appropriately exercised its discretion under Rule 23(f) in deciding whether to exercise discretionary review. However, some federal circuits have heeded the advisory committee’s advice and have established somewhat uniform circumstances in which review is appropriate and should be exercised. To date, seven circuits have addressed this issue and, while there is agreement among those courts generally whether to exercise discretionary review, there is no consensus on the actual method.

The Seventh Circuit was the first circuit to conduct a detailed analysis of the new rule and explicate a standard under which discretionary review should be exercised. Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 833 (7th Cir.1999). That court examined the purposes behind Rule 23(f) and used those purposes to determine the circumstances under which a court of appeals should grant discretionary review of orders granting or denying class certification. Blair, 181 F.3d at 834-35. The Blair court ultimately found three categories in which discretionary review should be granted: (1) when a questionable denial of class certification sounds a “death knell” for plaintiffs because the representative plaintiffs’ claims are too small to pursue individually, (2) when a questionable grant of class certification is likely to pressure defendants into settlement, and (3) when an immediate appeal may facilitate development of the law. Id. With minor changes and elaboration from circuit to circuit, the categories listed in Blair are present in some form in the case law from each of the other six circuits that have subsequently addressed this issue.

The First Circuit was the next to address Rule 23(f) and essentially adopted the Blair analysis with a slightly narrower third category. Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 293-94 (1st Cir.2000). In Waste Management, the court concluded that the third category should be restricted “to those instances in which an appeal will permit the resolution of an unsettled legal issue that is important to the particular litigation as well as important in itself and likely to escape effective review if left hanging until the end of the case.” Id. at 294 (footnote omitted).

Next, the Eleventh Circuit refined the Blair/Waste Management methodology by establishing five factors that elaborate on and clarify the earlier three-category analysis. Prado-Steiman v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1273-76 (11th Cir.2000).- These five factors are as follows: (1) whether the district court’s order is likely dispositive of the litigation by creating a “death knell” for either plaintiff or defendant; (2) whether petitioner has shown a substantial weakness in the class certification decision, such that the decision likely constitutes an abuse of discretion; (3) whether the appeal will permit resolution of an unsettled legal issue that is important to the particular litigation as well as important in itself; (4) the nature and status of the litigation before the district court; and (5) the likelihood that future events may make immediate appellate review more or less appropriate. Id. at 1274-76. One year later, the Fourth Circuit adopted the Prado-Steiman five-factor test with one slight elaboration. Lienhart v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 145-46 (4th Cir. 2001). In Lienhart, the court concluded that the second factor “operates on a sliding scale to determine the strength of the necessary showing regarding the other Prado-Steiman factors.” Id.

The Third Circuit did not directly follow the progression of the earlier cases, but it still adopted parts of the original three Blair categories, although it emphasized that there may be other appropriate reasons for discretionary review and that the decision to grant review is ultimately within the discretion of the courts of appeal. Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154, 163-65 (3d Cir.2001). The Second Circuit was the next circuit to address this issue and is generally in agreement with the Blair/Waste Management/Prado-Steiman line of cases, but refined the prior analysis and compressed it into a two-criteria test. Sumitomo Copper Lit. v. Credit Lyonnais Bouse, 262 F.3d 134, 139-40 (2d Cir.2001). The Second Circuit requires petitioners to meet one of two criteria:

[E]ither (1) that the certification order will effectively terminate the litigation and there has been a substantial showing that the district court’s decision is questionable, or (2) that the certification order implicates a legal question about which there is a compelling need for immediate resolution.

Id. at 139.

The D.C. Circuit was the most recent circuit to address standards for exercising discretionary review under Rule 23(f). In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, 289 F.3d 98, 102-06 (D.C.Cir. 2002). The D.C. Circuit acknowledged the approaches taken by the other circuits and placed special emphasis on the advisory committee note appended to Rule 23(f), concluding that discretionary review under Rule 23(f) will ordinarily be appropriate in three circumstances: (1) when a questionable class certification decision, taking into account the district court’s discretion over class certification, is the death knell for either the plaintiff or defendant; (2) when the certification decision presents an unsettled and fundamental issue of law relating to class actions, important both to the specific litigation and generally, that is likely to evade end-of-the-case review; and (3) when the district court’s class certification decision is manifestly erroneous. In re Lorazepam, 289 F.3d at 104-05.

We find the federal courts’ analysis and articulation of various tests to be helpful, but instead of adopting any of the federal circuits’ approaches wholesale, we will use a synthesis of the federal approaches. In particular, we adopt a nonexclusive list of factors for the court of appeals to consider in the future when making a determination whether to exercise discretionary review of a class certification decision under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01. We have extracted factors from the federal case law as well as some general principles. The three primary factors that indicate when discretionary review should be granted are as follows: (1) when a questionable denial of class certification is the “death knell” of plaintiffs’ case because their individual claims are too small to pursue individually; (2) when a questionable grant of class certification places inordinate pressure on the defendant to settle; and (3) whether the appeal will permit resolution of an important legal issue that is also important to the particular litigation.

The court of appeals should also be guided by certain other points about which the federal courts tend to agree. As a threshold matter, a determination of whether the district court’s ruling on class certification is questionable should take into consideration the district court’s discretion regarding class actions as well as the deferential appellate standard of review. See, e.g., Blair, 181 F.3d at 835 (noting that there is no reason for an interlocutory appeal of an order that is impervious to revision). The ultimate decision whether to grant review is within the discretion of a court of appeals and special, compelling circumstances may exist that require a different result than a pure application of the factors identified herein. See, e.g., Sumitomo, 262 F.3d at 139; Prado-Steiman, 221 F.3d at 1276. Most class certification decisions do not receive immediate appellate review and exercise of the discretionary power of review is the exception rather than the norm. See, e.g., Waste Management, 208 F.3d at 294 (noting general policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals); see also Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 179 (noting Minnesota’s policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals).

III.

Having articulated factors to be considered by the court of appeals when deciding whether to grant discretionary review, we now apply those factors to the case before us. Here, whether the court of appeals abused its discretion when it denied review is made more difficult to determine because the court’s short order opinion does not reveal much of that court’s analysis or deliberation. Additionally, it is difficult to conclude that there was an abuse of discretion because, at the time of the court of appeals’ decision, we had not yet provided guidance on this matter.

Nevertheless, we can glean from the court of appeals’ order that it did consider at least parts of two factors in making its decision not to grant discretionary review. Citing Emme (albeit in error) and Price, the court indicated that review was denied because the legal issue was not of broad applicability to the state and because reversal would not obviate further proceedings. While the cases cited by the court are distinguishable, the considerations in and of themselves — broad applicability and obviation of further proceedings — are similar to two of our newly-articulated factors. First, the determination that a legal question is not of “broad applicability” is very similar to the analysis under the third factor — resolution of an important legal issue that is also important to the particular litigation. Second, when the court of appeals concluded that reversal of the order would not obviate further proceedings, it likely considered part of the first two factors — whether the plaintiffs will be unable to continue the litigation or whether the defendants will be pressured into settlement.

We have in the past emphasized that the policy of our state is to avoid “piecemeal appeals” that interrupt and delay litigation. Emme, 418 N.W.2d at 179. This is such a case because Microsoft has effectively placed a hold on the litigation by pursuing an interlocutory appeal. Because we view this kind of disruption and delay with disfavor, appellate review of class certification orders should be an exception rather than the norm and the ultimate discretion whether to exercise discretionary review should he with the court of appeals. See, e.g., Waste Management, 208 F.3d at 294; Sumitomo, 262 F.3d at 139. Further, because we view piecemeal appeals with disfavor, if possible we should resolve the issue here rather than remand.

The limited reasons given by the court of appeals in its order denying review were terse and somewhat problematic, especially the citation to Emme. Nevertheless, the court of appeals had before it the district court’s order and that court’s lengthy supporting memorandum of law. Further, the court of appeals did ultimately deny review based on criteria similar to our newly-articulated standards. Accordingly, given the court of appeals’ broad discretion under Rule 105.01, our policy against piecemeal interlocutory appeals, and the fact that the court of appeals applied parts of two of our primary factors, we hold that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion when it denied Microsoft’s petition for discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 105.01.

Affirmed.

      . In addition to the petition for further review, Microsoft alleges that it also filed a petition for accelerated review with this court. Although the record indicates that a petition for accelerated review was served on respondents, there is no record that any petition for accelerated review was filed with the clerk of appellate courts.

      . Microsoft specifically petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ decision to deny discretionary review, but Microsoft's petition and respondents’ brief in opposition to the petition concentrated on the merits of the district court order. Therefore, we ordered the parties to brief the issue before this court, which is: What standards should the court of appeals use in determining whether to exercise discretionary review under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 105.01?

      . In Microsoft’s petition for review of the decision of the court of appeals, Microsoft also raised the issue whether the district court misinterpreted this court’s opinion in Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2 (Minn.2001). Microsoft argued that the district court cited Group Health to stand for the proposition that the standards for class certification and manageability under Rule 23 had been modified. However, respondents have conceded that Group Health did not modify the standard and, indeed, it appears that the district court did not cite the Group Health case as relaxing the standard for class certification under Rule 23. Instead, respondents point out that the district court only cited Group Health to show that Minnesota courts broadly construe remedial statutes.
      The only apparent connection between Group Health and class action certification is that Group Health, in the context of a certified question regarding consumer protection, rejected the holdings of two federal district court cases that denied class certification. Group Health, 621 N.W.2d at 14-15 (citing Thompson v. Am. Tobacco Co. Inc., 189 F.R.D. 544, 553 (D.Minn.1999); Parkhill v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 188 F.R.D. 332, 345 (D.Minn.1999)). To the extent that the district court cited Group Health to stand for the proposition that standards for class certification under Rule 23 have been lowered, it was in error. Group Health, 621 N.W.2d at 14-15.

      . See also In re Contest of General Election, 264 N.W.2d 401, 402 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (granting review because issue was of general importance); Univ. Cmty. Props., Inc. v. Norton, 311 Minn. 18, 21, 246 N.W.2d 858, 860 (1976) (granting review because review granted in similar case); Weinzierl v. Lien, 296 Minn. 539, 540, 209 N.W.2d 424, 424 (1973) (refusing review when record “amply sustains” the district court’s position); Miyoi v. Gold Bond Stamp Co. Employees Ret. Trust, 293 Minn. 376, 378, 196 N.W.2d 309, 310 (1972) (refusing to review when irreparable harm would not result from order).

      . In addition to the order opinion in this case, the court of appeals has cited Emme and Price before for the same propositions. Larson v. New Richland Care Ctr., 538 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Minn.App.1995), rev. granted (Minn. Dec. 20, 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 4, 1997); see also O’Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp., 543 N.W.2d 99, 101 (Minn.App.1996) (citing Rule 105.01 and Emme and then explaining that discretionary review was granted because the trial court's order fit within these two factors).

      . The rule allowing the court of appeals to take an appeal from a case certified by the trial court as important and doubtful is now Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 103.03(f).

      . One other similar case from this court stands for the same proposition — that cases presenting an important legal issue of broad applicability are appropriate for discretionary review under Rule 105.01. See In re Contest of General Election, 264 N.W.2d at 402 n. 1 (granting discretionary review because issue was of general importance). Importantly, this case does not indicate that this is a requirement for the exercise of discretionary review.

        .See also Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 760 A.2d 250, 254-55 (Me.2000) (discussing state approaches to appealability of class certification orders). The Maine court in Millett concludes that the majority rule among the states is that interlocutory appeals from class certification decisions are not allowed as a matter of right, absent authorization by specific state statute or appellate rule. 760 A.2d at 255.

      . We often look to case law from other states for guidance when our own jurisprudence is lacking, but here we choose to draw from federal law because it is more helpful. The majority rule among other states is that class certification orders are not immediately ap-pealable absent state statutes or rules specifically authorizing appeals from certification orders or generally authorizing appeals from interlocutory orders. See Millett, 760 A.2d at 254-55 (discussing state approaches to ap-pealability of class certification orders). Other states' law was less helpful to our analysis than federal law because the discretionary review statutes, rules, and judicial interpretations vary from state to state. See, e.g., Nolan v. Sea Airmotive, Inc., 627 P.2d 1035, 1038 n. 7 (Alaska 1981) (discussing rules permitting discretionary review of interlocutory orders of substance and importance); Reader v. Magma-Superior Copper Co., 108 Ariz. 186, 187, 494 P.2d 708, 709 (1972) (discussing statute permitting appeals from orders affecting substantial rights).


author: LANCASTER, Justice.

text:
    Gloria L. KOLTON, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ANOKA, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Allan T. Roth, individually and d/b/a A.T. Group, Petitioner, Appellant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Petitioner, Appellant.
    No. C1-00-2179.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    June 13, 2002.

      Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert D. Goodell, Asst. Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, MN, for Appellant, County of Anoka.
    Frederick E. Finch, Charles E. Lund-berg, Bassford, Lockhart, Truesdell & Briggs, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant, Allan T. Roth.
    James F. Roegge, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Mark E. Schmidtke, Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans, L.L.P., Valparaiso, IN, for Appellant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
    Wayne J. Rice, The Law Office of Wayne J. Rice, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Erica Jacobson, Asst. Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota.
    Roderick J. Macpherson III, Minnesota Disability Law Center, Minneapolis, MN, for amici curiae Mental Health Association of Minnesota, Mental Health Consumer/Survivor Network, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill-Minnesota and Minnesota Disability Law Center.
    Carolyn Doppelt Gray, Michael B. Leh-rhoff, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, DC, for amicus curiae American Council of Life Insurers.
   OPINION

LANCASTER, Justice.

We are asked to decide whether an employer that provides at no cost to its employees a long-term disability plan that limits benefits for disability due to mental illness to 24 months unless the employee is confined to a hospital or an institution licensed to provide psychiatric treatment, but does not so limit benefits for physical disabilities, discriminates because of disability in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c) (2000), or violates the right to equal protection under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. We conclude that such an employer does not discriminate because of disability in violation of the MHRA and does not violate the right to equal protection under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions.

The parties agree that the material facts are not in dispute. In 1987, appellant County of Anoka added long-term disability (LTD) insurance to its employee benefits package. In 1994, the county solicited bids for LTD coverage and received proposals from nine companies. The proposals contained a distinction, standard in the industry, in benefits between mental and physical disabilities. The proposals limited benefits for disability due to mental illness to 24 months unless the employee was confined to a hospital or an institution licensed to provide psychiatric treatment, but did not contain a similar limitation on benefits for physical disabilities. Appellant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada submitted the least expensive proposals and the county accepted one of them. The Sun Life policy selected by the county took effect on July 1, 1994. The county provided the policy to its employees, without regard to their physical or mental status, at no cost to them.

Respondent Gloria Kolton worked for Anoka County as an income maintenance specialist from December 1990 to October 1994. She resigned due to mental illness and has been disabled ever since. She received long-term disability benefits from Sun Life from April 1995 to April 1997. At the end of that 2-year period, Sun Life terminated her benefits because she was not confined to a hospital or an institution licensed to provide psychiatric treatment.

In early 1997, Kolton filed a charge of disability discrimination against Anoka County with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Later that year, the EEOC issued a determination that the county had violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (1994). After the EEOC determination, the county obtained additional LTD coverage that removed the limitation on benefits for disabilities due to mental illness, for which it paid an additional $28,000 in annual premiums.

Kolton filed suit against the county, alleging that it had violated the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1, the right to equal protection under the Minnesota Constitution, Minn. Const, art. 1, § 2, the MHRA, Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2) (2000), and the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The county filed a third-party complaint against Allan T. Roth, individually and doing business as A.T. Group, and Sun Life. Anoka County, Sun Life, and Roth (collectively, appellants) then moved to dismiss Kolton’s complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

The district court granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Kolton’s claims. First, the district court applied rational basis review to Kolton’s federal and state equal protection claims and found that the limitation on benefits for disability due to mental illness served the county’s legitimate purpose of considering cost and economic factors when selecting its insurance policies. Next, the district court held that Kolton did not have standing to maintain her ADA claim. Finally, the district court concluded that the MHRA does not prohibit an employer from granting different benefits for different disabilities in LTD plans.

Kolton appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Kolton v. County of Anoka, 628 N.W.2d 643, 645 (Minn.App.2001). With respect to the MHRA claim, the court of appeals reversed and entered summary judgment in Kolton’s favor. The court of appeals held that “differences in long-term disability benefits based merely on whether an employee is physically or mentally disabled is discrimination in violation of the MHRA.” Kolton, 628 N.W.2d at 648. As to the constitutional claims, the court of appeals acknowledged that limiting benefits for disabilities due to mental illness may decrease the cost of disability insurance, and therefore affirmed summary judgment in appellants’ favor. Id. at 649.

Appellants petitioned for further review of the MHRA claim. Kolton requested cross-review on the constitutional claims, and we granted the parties’ requests for further review. With respect to the MHRA claim, we reverse and reinstate summary judgment in favor of appellants. As to the constitutional claims, we affirm summary judgment in favor of appellants.

On appeal from summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact, we review whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura, 610 N.W.2d 293, 298 (Minn.2000); Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Transit Comm’n, 538 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn.1995). That question, whether the district court erred in its application of the law, is subject to de novo review. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. A.C.C.T., Inc., 580 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn.1998); Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511, 515 (Minn.1997). In this case, the legal questions involve both statutory and constitutional questions.

Minnesota Human Rights Act Claim

We first address whether Anoka County discriminated against Kolton because of her disability in violation of Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c). Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review. Hince v. O’Keefe, 632 N.W.2d 577, 582 (Minn.2001); Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 190 (Minn.1990). When we interpret a statute, our goal “is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2000); Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn.2001). We will not disregard the words of a statute if they are free from ambiguity. Minn.Stat. § 645.16; State v. Gorman, 546 N.W.2d 5, 8 (Minn.1996).

Kolton asserts that the county violated Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c), which states, “Except when based on a bona fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice [f]or an employer, because of * * * disability * * * to discriminate against a person with respect to * * * compensation, terms, * * * or privileges of employment.” The MHRA’s definition of “discriminate” includes “segregate or separate.” Minn.Stat. § 363.01, subd. 14 (2000). The distinction between mental and physical disabilities in the county’s LTD plan arguably constitutes a “separation” because it sets apart employees who become mentally disabled from those who become physically disabled. On the other hand, the county may not have discriminated on the basis of disability because it provided the same plan-on the same terms to its employees. Thus, the language of the statute does not unambiguously answer the question whether providing — to all employees equally — a disability policy that contains different coverage for different kinds of disabilities amounts to discrimination “because of’ disability.

In the past, we have found interpretations of federal anti-discrimination statutes useful to guide our interpretation of the MHRA when the MHRA provisions in question are similar to provisions of the federal statutes. See State by Cooper v. Hennepin County, 441 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Minn.1989) (relying on interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in construing the definition of “disabled person” under the MHRA); Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 719 (Minn.1986) (acknowledging application of interpretations of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 to interpret MHRA because of similarities between the statutes). When provisions of the MHRA are not similar to provisions of federal anti-discrimination statutes, however, we have departed from the federal rule in our interpretation of the MHRA. See Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418, 422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (acknowledging departure from federal rule because of textual differences between the MHRA and federal statute).

Appellants argue that the section of the MHRA at issue in this case, Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c), has a comparable counterpart in Title I of the ADA. They ask us to interpret the MHRA in accord with federal appellate courts’ interpretations of Title I. Kolton asserts that the federal courts’ interpretations of Title I do not bind this court’s interpretation of the MHRA and argues that we have rejected the rationale underlying their interpretations of Title I.

Appellants call our attention to the following language of Title I of the ADA: “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to * * * employee compensation, * * * and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (1994). Although section 363.03 and section 12112 are not identical, they both prohibit employment discrimination based on disability. We conclude that the state and federal provisions are sufficiently similar that we should be guided by interpretations of Title I in analyzing Kolton’s MHRA claim.

The federal courts are essentially unanimous in rejecting the argument that Title I prohibits distinctions between mental and physical disabilities in coverage for long-term disability benefits. See EEOC v. Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d 144, 148-50 (2d Cir.2000); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1116-18 (9th Cir.2000); Kimber v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (10th Cir. 1999); Lewis v. Kmart Corp., 180 F.3d 166, 170 (4th Cir.1999); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 608 (3d Cir. 1998); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1015-16 (6th Cir.1997); EEOC v. CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d 1039, 1044 (7th Cir.1996).

Many of the federal appellate courts hold specifically that no discrimination occurs for purposes of Title I of the ADA if all employees enjoy equal access to a LTD plan, even if the policy provides different coverage for mental and physical disabilities. The reasoning of the Seventh Circuit is typical:

All employees — the perfectly healthy, the physically disabled, and the mentally disabled — had a plan that promised them long-term benefits from the onset of disability until age 65 if their problem was physical, and long-term benefits for two-years if the problem was mental or nervous. This may or may not be an enlightened way to do things, but it was not discriminatory in the usual sense of the term.

CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d at 1044; see Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1116 (“[Tjhere is no discrimination under the [ADA] where disabled individuals are given the same opportunity as everyone else, so insurance distinctions that apply equally to all employees cannot be discriminatory.”); Lewis, 180 F.3d at 170 (holding that Title I of the ADA “does not require a long-term disability plan that is sponsored by a private employer to provide the same level of benefits for mental and physical disabilities”); Ford, 145 F.3d at 608 (“So long as every employee is offered the same plan regardless of that employee’s contemporary or future disability status, then no discrimination has occurred even if the plan offers different coverage for various disabilities.”); Parker, 121 F.3d at 1015 (“The disparity in benefits provided in the policy at issue is also not prohibited by the ADA because the ADA does not mandate equality between individuals with different disabilities.”).

Kolton contends that we rejected the rationale underlying these decisions — that an employer does not discriminate because of disability if employees have equal access to the same LTD plan even if the plan distinguishes between mental and physical disabilities — in Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. State, 289 N.W.2d 396 (Minn.1979). Specifically, Kolton argues that in Minnesota Mining, we interpreted “discrimination” under the MHRA to prohibit an employer from providing inferior benefits to an employee if that decision is based on the type of disability.

In Minnesota Mining, we held that the exclusion of pregnancy-related absences from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination within the meaning of the MHRA. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 397. In 1977, more than two years before we decided Minnesota Mining, the legislature amended the MHRA’s sex discrimination provisions. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. Before the amendments, the MHRA prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not specifically mention pregnancy and childbirth. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. The amendments defined “sex” to include pregnancy, childbirth, and related disabilities, and made it an unfair employment practice for an employer to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related disabilities differently from other employees not so affected but who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Act of June 2, 1977, ch. 408, §§ 1, 3, 1977 Minn. Laws 951, 952-54. We stated that the employer’s plan “obviously” violated the MHRA as amended in 1977. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. We held that the amendments clarified rather than changed the scope of prohibited sex discrimination under the MHRA. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 399-400. Thus the employer’s plan violated the MHRA both before and after the amendments. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 397.

Having interpreted the statute before and after the 1977 amendments, we noted that the employer’s income maintenance plan covered voluntary cosmetic surgery and injuries resulting from voluntary participation in sports, but did not cover unforeseen and involuntary complications of pregnancy. Id. at 400. We then stated:

It seems clear that 3M’s plan reflects traditional sexual role stereotypes. Women in their childbearing years are viewed merely as temporary members of the labor force who, as such, do not need income security, since they are most probably supplementing their husbands’ incomes and will eventually quit their jobs to become mothers. Since insuring for pregnancy disabilities increases the cost of the plan, pregnancy coverage is simply deleted. If women are to be treated equally, such plans must be designed to insure identical security for women and for men from medical disabilities which may interrupt their income flow. Since only women face the risk of becoming pregnant, excluding only pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination. A woman should be no more burdened than a man if she chooses to combine the roles of parent and employee, simply because the woman must bear the child.

Id.

In Minnesota Mining, we did not hold that coverage of some disabilities and not others alone violated the MHRA. Instead it was the direct correlation between the type of disability not covered and gender that invalidated the employer’s plan. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 400. Our interpretation in Minnesota Mining relied on the statutory amendment that clarified that the scope of sex discrimination included disabilities related to pregnancy and childbirth. In this case, we are without legislative guidance as to the scope of disability discrimination. Taken to its logical conclusion, Kolton’s argument would require employers to cover every conceivable disabling malady equally, a requirement not at all apparent from the MHRA.

Another reason cited by several federal appellate court opinions, upon which appellants rely, to interpret Title I of the ADA to not require employers to provide the same coverage for different disabilities is the insurance industry’s longstanding practice of offering different benefits for different disabilities and the absence of an explicit legislative condemnation of the practice. The Second Circuit, for example, reasoned as follows:

[W]e are persuaded, when reading the language of the statute in light of the long-term history of disability plans, that Title I of the ADA does not require disability benefit plans to provide equal benefits for mental and physical disabilities. The ADA, unclear on its face, does not specifically condemn the historic and nearly universal practice inherent in the insurance industry of providing different benefits for different disabilities. The interpretation of Title I urged upon us * * * would require far-reaching changes in the way the insurance industry does business. Of course Congress could require those modifications to be made, but we are reluctant to infer such a mandate for radical change absent a clearer legislative command.

Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d at 149 (citation omitted); see Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1116 (“[H]ad Congress intended to control which coverages had to be offered by employers, it would have spoken more plainly because of the well-established marketing process to the contrary. ‘Insurers have historically and consistently made distinctions between mental and physical illness in offering health and disability coverage.’ ”) (quoting Rogers v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 174 F.3d 431, 435 (4th Cir.1999)); cf. Ford, 145 F.3d at 608 (“The ADA does not require equal coverage for every type of disability; such a requirement, if it existed, would destabilize the insurance industry in a manner definitely not intended by Congress when passing the ADA.”).

Because the language of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) is similar to that of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c), we find the federal appellate courts’ interpretations of Title I of the ADA useful to guide our interpretation of the MHRA. In this case, Anoka County provided LTD coverage to its employees, without regard to their physical or mental status, at no cost to them. All employees received the same plan on the same terms. The plan contained a limitation that was standard within the insurance industry. Just as Congress could have required “those modifications to be made,” Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d at 149, the Minnesota legislature could have explicitly mandated mental health parity in LTD plans had it intended to upset an established industry practice. We hold that the county did not violate Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. l(2)(c), by providing at no cost to its employees LTD coverage that provided different benefits for mental and physical disabilities. We therefore reverse the court of appeals and reinstate summary judgment on this claim in favor of appellants.

Constitutional Claims

We turn to Kolton’s claim that Anoka County violated her right to equal protection under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. The Fourteenth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[no state shall] deny to any person 'within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. The Minnesota Constitution states that “[n]o member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.” Minn. Const, art. I, § 2. “Both clauses have been analyzed under the same principles and begin with the mandate that all similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike, but only ‘invidious discrimination’ is deemed constitutionally offensive.” Scott v. Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, 615 N.W.2d 66, 74 (Minn.2000).

If a constitutional challenge involves neither a suspect classification nor a fundamental right, we review the challenge under a rational basis standard under both the state and federal constitutions. Id. The parties do not dispute that rational basis review applies in this case. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (“States are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to make special accommodations for the disabled, so long as their actions toward such individuals are rational.”). Thus, the county’s LTD plan is presumed valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. See Scott, 615 N.W.2d at 74.

Over the years we have applied two formulations of a rational basis test to determine whether a challenged classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. One formulation is the standard articulated by federal courts for the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, where it must be determined whether the challenged classification has a legitimate purpose and whether it was reasonable to believe that use of the challenged classification would promote that purpose. See W. & S. Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 668, 101 S.Ct. 2070, 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981); Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal, 453 N.W.2d 326, 329 (Minn.1990). The second formulation, sometimes referred to as the Minnesota rational basis test, requires that:

(1) The distinctions which separate those included within the classification from those excluded must not be manifestly arbitrary or fanciful but must be genuine and substantial, thereby providing a natural and reasonable basis to justify legislation adapted to peculiar conditions and needs; (2) the classification must be genuine or relevant to the purpose of the law; that is there must be an evident connection between the distinctive needs peculiar to the class and the prescribed remedy; and (3) the purpose of the statute must be one that the state can legitimately attempt to achieve.

State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886, 888 (Minn.1991) (quoting Wegan v. Village of Lexington, 309 N.W.2d 273, 280 (Minn.1981)).

Resolution of Kolton’s constitutional claims does not depend on which formulation of the rational basis test applies. Under either formulation, the district court properly granted appellants’ motion for summary judgment. We conclude that the purpose of Anoka County’s LTD plan — to provide the same plan to its employees while maintaining its fiscal integrity — is one that the county could legitimately attempt to achieve. See Ohio Bureau of Employment Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 493, 97 S.Ct. 1898, 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977); Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861, 867 (Minn.1988). The distinctions drawn by the plan are relevant to its purpose as demonstrated by the fact that the county paid an additional $28,000 in annual premiums to remove the limitation on benefits for disabilities due to mental illness. A study attached to an affidavit submitted by an expert retained by Kolton recognized that the percentage of claims arising from mental and nervous disorders is markedly higher for LTD policies that do not limit the duration of benefits for such disabilities. In addition, the distinctions drawn by the plan in this case do not exclude classes of employees; all employees receive the same plan on the same terms. Thus, the county’s LTD plan is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

We also acknowledge that the United States Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of a provision in a disability plan that is similar to the provision Kolton challenges. In Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974), the Court considered a constitutional challenge to a state disability insurance program that, in defining “disability,” excluded from coverage certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy. Id. at 486, 94 S.Ct. 2485. The specific issue before the Court was whether the program invidiously discriminated against the plaintiff by not paying insurance benefits for disability that accompanies normal pregnancy and childbirth. Id. at 492, 94 S.Ct. 2485. The Court rejected the plaintiffs argument:

We cannot agree that the exclusion of this disability from coverage amounts to invidious discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. [The State] does not discriminate with respect to the persons or groups which are eligible for disability insurance protection under the program. The classification challenged in this case relates to the asserted underin-clusiveness of the set of risks that the State has selected to insure. Although [the State] has created a program to insure most risks of employment disability, it has not chosen to insure all such risks, and this decision is reflected in the level of annual contributions exacted from participating employees. This Court has held that, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, a State “may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.... The legislature may select one phase of one field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others.... ” Particularly with respect to social welfare programs, so long as the line drawn by the State is rationally supportable, the courts will not interpose their judgment as to the appropriate stopping point. “[T]he Equal Protection Clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all.”

Geduldig, 417 U.S. at 494-95, 94 S.Ct. 2485 (citations omitted). The Court stated that the United States Constitution does not require a state “to subordinate or compromise its legitimate interests solely to create a more comprehensive social insurance program than it already has.” Geduldig, 417 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. 2485. The State’s interests included maintaining the self-supporting nature of the program, distributing adequate benefits for disabilities that are covered rather than covering more disabilities inadequately, and maintaining the employee contribution rate at a level that does not unduly burden employees. Id. The Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs claim “is not a valid one under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Geduldig, 417 U.S. at 497, 94 S.Ct. 2485.

Less than 3 years later, the Court held that a disability program similar to the one at issue in Geduldig did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 128, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). Congress then amended Title VII to reverse Gilbert. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 670, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983). Newport News does not, however, cast doubt on the continued vitality of Ged-uldig, an interpretation not of Title VII but of the federal constitution. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 272 n. 3, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993).

We hold that Anoka County violated neither the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the right to equal protection of the Minnesota Constitution. We therefore affirm summary judgment in favor of appellants on Kolton’s constitutional claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

      . Roth submitted a proposal on behalf of Sun Life to Anoka County in response to the county's request for bids for LTD coverage.

      . Kolton did not appeal the summary judgment on her ADA claim.

      . One Eleventh Circuit panel departed from the rule established by the other circuits, but that opinion was vacated. See Johnson v. K Mart Corp., 273 F.3d 1035, 1054 & n. 16 (11th Cir.), reh'g en banc granted, 273 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir.2001).

      . Although the legislature mandated mental health parity in health plans, it exempted disability plans from that requirement. Minnesota Statutes § 62Q.47(b) (2000) provides that "[c]ost-sharing requirements and benefit or service limitations for outpatient mental health and outpatient chemical dependency services * * * must not place a greater financial burden on the insured or enrollee, or be more restrictive than those requirements and limitations for outpatient medical services.” Minnesota Statutes § 62Q.47(c) (2000) imposes the same conditions on inpatient services. Minnesota Statutes § 62Q.47(a) (2000) states that section 62Q.47 applies to health plans, as defined in Minn.Stat. § 62Q.01 (2000), that provide coverage for mental health or chemical dependency services. Section 62Q.01 refers to the definition of "health plan” in Minn. Stat. § 62A.011 (2000). Minnesota Statutes § 62A.011, subd. 3 (2000), excludes coverage that is "limited to disability or income protection coverage” from the definition of "health plan.”

      . We acknowledge that questions exist as to the applicability of the two formulations in different contexts. See Scott, 615 N.W.2d at 74 n. 15.