Minnesota Human Rights Act
Issue
Is clarification of the Minnesota’s Human Rights Act needed with respect to sexual harassment and the definition of “actual damages?”
Policy
- Sexual Harassment: The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) should be amended to make it clear that the affirmative defenses employers have under federal law also apply in sexual harassment cases under state law. Prior to a 2001 law change, sexual harassment under the MHRA only existed if the employer “knows or should know of the existence of the harassment and fails to take timely and appropriate action.” This language was eliminated in an attempt to conform with a U.S. Supreme Court case on supervisor harassment and with the intent that federal defenses still would be available to employers. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. that since Minnesota’s discrimination liability law is more onerous than federal law, the court is not required to follow federal court decisions. In addition, the Minnesota Supreme Court in Cummings v. Koehnen rejected the federal standards on a same-sex harassment case because the MHRA is different from federal law with respect to sexual harassment. This suggests that employers could be strictly liable for sexual harassment claims because the Legislature deleted the affirmative defenses from Minnesota law and the court does not have to follow federal case law. Clarifying the MHRA is necessary to avoid this outcome.
- Definition of "Actual Damages:Currently, no definition exists for the terms “actual damages” under the MHRA. The Minnesota Supreme Court in the Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. case interpreted the term to include future damages or front pay. Including front pay in actual damages is contrary to a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Pollard v. E.I. du Pont de Nemous & Co.). It states that front pay should not be considered part of compensatory damages. It views front pay as a substitute to an employer reinstating a former employee to his/her former job. If reinstatement occurs, front pay is not required. The Legislature should define “actual damages” to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of the issue.
Business Impact
Clarifying the Minnesota Human Rights Act with respect to sexual harassment will eliminate the potential for strict liability in co-worker sexual harassment cases in which the employer either didn’t know the harassment took place or the employer took timely and appropriate action to address the issue. Defining “actual damages” to exclude front pay will put Minnesota law in agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of discrimination law.
This web site is developed and owned by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Any use or reprinting is strictly prohibited without prior consent of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
