Last week, the Eighth Circuit said that a remote worker cannot sue their employer under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), noting the law's language makes clear that it does not apply to nonresidents.

The plaintiff in the case—a Michigan-based remote employee—took time off from work to recover from surgery. Shortly after her FMLA protected leave ran out, her employment was terminated. She sued her employer, alleging her employer violated the MHRA by refusing to accommodate her and by terminating her employment. 

Her employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not covered under the MHRA because the statute defines an employee as someone who works for an employer and "resides or works in this state [of Minnesota]." The plaintiff had never lived in Minnesota, nor had she traveled to Minnesota for work for nearly two years before she was fired. Accordingly, the district court entered summary judgment for the employer.

On appeal, a three-judge panel honed in on the statute's "works in this state" language, questioning whether it required Kuklenski to have a physical presence in Minnesota. 

While the plaintiff argued the language should be interpreted liberally, the panel disagreed. In its opinion, the panel explained that the “plain meaning” of the phrase requires "some degree of physical presence in Minnesota," as any other reading would contradict the statute's purpose to "secure for persons in this state [of Minnesota], freedom from discrimination" because "discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state [of Minnesota]." The panel found these phrases made clear that the law aimed to protect only those who live or work within the boundaries of Minnesota state lines.

The panel also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the court should consider her other contacts with the state, such as her supervisors' and her clients' physical presence in Minnesota, and her past travel to Minnesota for work. The panel found the MHRA’s language did not consider other factors and that her almost two-year absence from the state between February 2020 and December 2021 belied her argument that her absence was “temporary.”  

The decision suggests that a non-resident with “customary or habitual” work in Minnesota potentially could be covered under the MHRA, and further clarifies that a person need not be physically present in Minnesota at the time of the discriminatory conduct to qualify as an employee under the MHRA. 

However, an important question remains open: whether there are minimum requirements for travel to, or time spent in, the state of Minnesota to qualify for coverage under the MHRA.