finds that these potential legal and ethical concerns respecting both college faculties are causally related. Therefore, the Court finds that there is not sufficient evidence upon which a trier of fact could reasonably find for the plaintiffs’ EPA claim. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the EPA claim is granted. C. Title VII Disparate Impact & MHRA While plaintiffs have brought claims under both Title VII and the MHRA, the Court analyzes both under the Title VII rubric. See Mems v. City of St. Paul, 224 F.3d 735, 738 (8th Cir.2000) (citing Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.1997); Turner v. IDS Financial Servs., Inc., 471 N.W.2d 105, 107 (Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>)). Additionally, the basic analysis of an EPA
holding that where there are no cases on point we must predict how the supreme court of minnesota would rule holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that while not bound to follow the federal rule the minnesota supreme court relies on the principles of title vii when construing the mhra holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration