In Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an employee working remotely at a Minnesota-based company was an employee as defined and contemplated under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). The MHRA describes an employee as “an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state.” (Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, Subd. 15)
The plaintiff, Jan Kuklenski (“Plaintiff”) was employed at Medtronic from 2019 until her termination in December of 2021. When initially hired, she did not reside primarily in Minnesota but occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work. However, in early 2020, she began working entirely remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and did not engage in any travel to Minnesota for work from February 2020 through her termination. In June of 2021, Plaintiff went on a three-month medical leave, at the end of which she requested an additional three months of leave. Defendant, Medtronic USA (”Defendant”), declined to hold her position after the initial leave expired and filled it in October of 2021. Plaintiff was terminated in December 2021 and brought a claim for wrongful termination in violation of the MHRA in the Federal District Court for the district of Minnesota.
The district court granted summary judgment to Medtronic, finding that Plaintiff was not an employee under the MHRA because she had no physical presence in Minnesota since February 2020, almost two years prior to her termination.
The court of appeals agreed, finding the MHRA’s language defining employee was clear and unambiguous. Assigning the “plain and ordinary” meaning to “work,” “reside,” and “in,” the court found that work used as a verb is the performance of “work” or fulfillment of “duties regularly for wages or salary,” or “to have a job.” “Reside” refers to living or dwelling in a place “permanently” or “continuously.” The court noted that both must be viewed in terms of the functional limitations of “in,” which indicates a location, and employment or residence within limits, bounds or area of that location. The court concluded the protections of the MHRA required the employee have a “physical presence” in Minnesota.
In response to Plaintiff’s urging the MHRA be “construed liberally for the accomplishment of the [statute’s] purposes,” the court further explained that even under a liberal construction, the MHRA’s express policy is to prevent discrimination and threats “to the rights and privileges of inhabitants” […] and “persons in this state” (Minnesota). The court noted that the MHRA “does not necessarily exclude a person who works both in and outside the state of Minnesota” or require physical presence in “Minnesota at the time of the discriminatory conduct.” Rather, the court held that Plaintiff’s total absence from the state for almost two years did not contemplate a habitual or customary presence for work within the state or support a finding her absence from the state was temporary. Accordingly, Plaintiff could not establish a physical presence in Minnesota that would satisfy the “works in” requirement to qualify as an employee under the MHRA and trigger its protections.
The takeaway is that employers should be cognizant of both the work and residential location of remote employees and understand how that may impact applicability of state employment protections. If you or your organization need assistance in determining statutory protections applicable to remote employees, contact Wiley Reber Law for legal advice that works.