 |
|
|
|
 |
||
 |
|
 |
 |
||
 |
||
  |
||
Is clarification of the Minnesota’s Human Rights Act needed with respect to sexual harassment and the definition of “actual damages?”
Definition of “actual damages:” At present, no definition exists for the term “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.
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 website 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.
