Although the meteoric rise in remote work prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have plateaued and may even be scaling back as employers press return-to-office policies, the reality is that many employees still work, and will continue to work, remotely. As employment law is largely legislated at the state level, the variation in how state laws apply to employers with employees working or reporting into offices in different states can present real challenges. In its April 9, 2025 decision in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit addressed these issues when analyzing whether an employee who did not reside or work in Minnesota could nonetheless bring a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).
Hired in 1999 by Minnesota-based Medtronic USA, Inc., Ms. Kuklenski never lived in Minnesota during her 20-year tenure with the company. Although Ms. Kuklenski would occasionally travel to Minnesota for work, she stopped making work trips to Minnesota in February 2020 when Medtronic instructed all employees to work remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, when she filed a lawsuit against Medtronic in Minnesota federal court, claiming that its termination of her employment was discriminatory and violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), she had not set foot in Minnesota in nearly two years.
Following surgery, Ms. Kuklenski began a three-month medical leave, which she sought to...
Business The Managing Director of PWAN Plus Business Concerns Ltd, Prof. Julius Oyedemi has refuted allegations made by social media influencer, Scott Iguma, over the ownership and allocation of la...