A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently issued a decision in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), finding that the definition of “employee” in the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) requires physical presence within Minnesota; virtual presence and work-related contacts with the state are not sufficient.
The plaintiff worked for Minnesota-based Medtronic from 1999 until her termination in December 2021. She worked remotely from California, Illinois, and Michigan and never resided in Minnesota, but she occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work. In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Medtronic to order all its employees to work remotely, and the plaintiff did not travel to Minnesota for work at any time after February 2020.
After her termination, the plaintiff sued Medtronic in the federal district court in Minnesota, asserting disability discrimination under the MHRA and other claims. The plaintiff alleged that she was fired after she took time off to recover from surgery. After three months of approved leave, she sought another three months of leave. Medtronic did not keep her job open for her after the initial three-month leave expired and later filled her position; she was formally terminated after attempting to log back in to work. She claimed the company violated the law by refusing to accommodate her. The district court granted summary judgment for Medtronic, finding that the plaintiff was not an “employee” as defined by the MHRA because she had no physical presence in Minnesota. The district court also dismissed her claims of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act on the same basis. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her MHRA disability claim to the 8th Circuit and requested that it certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court the question of how to define “employee” under the MHRA.
The MHRA defines an employee as “an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state.” Because the plaintiff never resided in Minnesota, the 8th Circuit panel found that to fall within the statutory definition of employee, she had to show that she worked in Minnesota. Like the district court, the panel looked to dictionary definitions and concluded that the plain meaning of the phrase “resides or works in this state” requires some degree of physical presence in Minnesota. Both courts observed that this interpretation is consistent with MHRA’s statement of public policy: “[i]t is the public policy of this state to secure for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination,” because “[s]uch discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state.”
The panel rejected the plaintiff’s argument that appearing virtually in the state satisfied the physical presence requirement. The panel also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that courts should apply a “contact-based” approach in which the employee’s contacts with the state should be considered, such as the fact that her supervisors were located in Minnesota and that she often communicated with clients in the state. The panel declined to accept a multi-factor contacts-based analysis, holding that an employee cannot satisfy the “works in this state” requirement by pointing only to non-physical-presence contacts with the state. Past physical presence in the state while working for an employer, followed by an extended period of no presence, is also insufficient.
The panel declined to certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court the question of how to define employee under the MHRA, finding that this case “does not present a close question of state law.” While the Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to address this question, the federal Court of Appeals’ opinion provides initial persuasive authority.
Notably, the panel commented that the MHRA’s definition of employee does not necessarily exclude a person who works both in and outside the state of Minnesota. Nor does the statute require that a person be physically present in Minnesota at the time of the discriminatory conduct in order to qualify as an employee under the MHRA.
Ballard Spahr’s Minnesota labor and employment attorneys represent Minnesota companies of all sizes against claims of discrimination and, along with rest of our Labor and Employment Group nationwide, advise on the full spectrum of employment matters under state and federal law.