Articles Discussing The Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a bill significantly amending the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) on May 15, 2024. The MHRA, otherwise known as Minnesota’s anti-discrimination statute, already prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, familial status, and age.

On February 8, 2023, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its first significant decision interpreting the state’s employment discrimination law, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), in three years. In a ruling that will likely be hailed as a victory by employees and employers alike, the supreme court clarified the law

Minnesota has now joined at least 19 other states in enacting a CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.”  The Act, which in Minnesota has come in the form of brief but important amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), protects

In a much-anticipated decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court on June 3, 2020, declined to abandon the requirement that harassing conduct be “severe or pervasive” to be actionable under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).

Earlier this month MIOSHA released a new Fact Sheet entitled Eyewashes and Safety Showers. Briefly, this Fact Sheet states the general requirement that:

On April 23, 2018, Minnesota House Majority Leader Joyce Peppin introduced HF 4459, a bill to amend the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) to change the legal standard for sexual harassment. The bill, which has wide bipartisan support and 34 cosponsors, has a companion bill in the Senate sponsored by Senator Karen Housley. If passed, the bill would do away with the “severe or pervasive” standard for sexual harassment claims, but is silent on the replacement. As drafted, the bill would likely create confusion and uncertainty for employers, employees, and the courts statewide.

A Michigan appellate court denied an attempt by an employee to receive a severance jackpot based on a drafting mistake made by his former employer. Notwithstanding the employee’s entitlement, based on the terms of his separation agreement, to receive approximately $81 thousand dollars per week for 34 weeks, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision to reform the contract, resulting in the employee receiving a total of $81 thousand over 34 weeks. The case highlights, among other things, the importance of proofreading.

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, ruled that a complaint process in an employer’s anti-discrimination policy may toll the statute of limitations under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). At issue was a section of the MHRA stating that the Act’s one-year statute of limitations is “suspended during the time period a potential charging party and respondent are voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process involving a claim of unlawful discrimination under this chapter.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 3. The court of appeals held that the phrase “voluntarily engaged in a dispute resolution process” may include the process of investigating an employee’s internal complaint of discrimination under an employer’s anti-discrimination policy. This ruling, if not overturned on appeal, significantly expands the scope of what most employers would view as a proper tolling of the statute of limitations.

This week, Minnesota passed the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), a nine-part law intended to break down barriers for women in the workplace. Of direct interest to employers, the law protects employees’ discussion about wages, requires certain state government contractors to certify their compliance with pay equity laws, provides unemployment benefits for victims of sexual assault, domestic abuse, or stalking, offers time-off rights for relatives and “safety” leave, enhances rights and protections for pregnant and nursing mothers, expands new parent leave, and provides discrimination protections for familial status.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has signed the Women’s Economic Security Act (“Act”) into law. The Act is a major piece of legislation aimed at improving working conditions for women that will have a significant impact on Minnesota businesses.

Minnesota’s Supreme Court and its Court of Appeals have long followed federal cases in interpreting state civil rights laws analogous to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (the federal anti-discrimination law), such as the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act. Thus, in retaliation cases, an aggrieved employee needed to prove only that the employer’s retaliatory motive was a “discernible, discriminatory, and causative” factor in the adverse employment decision. Graham v. Special School District No. 1, 472 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 1991). This may be changing.

That alleged sexually explicit behavior was directed at both men and women is irrelevant in determining the existence of a hostile work environment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held. Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Company d/b/a Lou’s Fish House et al., No. A11-2178 (Minn. May 22, 2013). The Court further ruled that employees need not offer evidence of a loss of pay or benefits to establish a hostile work environment claim. Finally, it held that an employee whose conduct subjects the employer to vicarious liability for hostile work environment sexual harassment claims cannot be held individually liable as an aider and abettor under the MHRA.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has signed a law permitting civil marriage between any two consenting persons, including same-sex couples. The new law becomes effective on August 1, 2013.

Executive Summary: Your friends may refuse to hang out with you because of your spouse, but in Minnesota, your employer generally cannot. On May 20, 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued the first Minnesota appellate decision addressing marital discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) since 2011, Aase v. Wapiti Meadows Community Techs. & Servs., Inc.

Explaining that whether sexual harassment occurred is a legal determination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s dismissal of three employees’ suit for hostile work environment against their employers. Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., No. A11-2178 (Minn. Ct. App. July 23, 2012).