The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued its first significant decision interpreting the state's employment discrimination law, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), in three years.
In a ruling that will likely be hailed as a victory by employees and employers alike, the court clarified the law on several issues. First, the court reiterated that a plaintiff claiming a hostile work environment under the MHRA must present evidence of "severe or pervasive" harassment by showing inappropriate workplace conduct, not simply by showing discrimination. Second, the court held that a plaintiff can establish a constructive discharge under the state law through intentional discrimination, even in the absence of an intolerable workplace, and that such a plaintiff need not show that he or she gave the employer an opportunity to remedy the discrimination before quitting. Finally, the court held that a plaintiff may not show adverse employment action, for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the MHRA, by "cumulative evidence."
In Henry v. Independent School District #625, Barbara Henry had worked for the school district as a network technician for 19 years when she received the first two substandard reviews of her career and subsequently was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). After receiving a third negative review and written notice that the school district was considering terminating her employment, Henry resigned. She filed suit,...
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently revised the Justice Manual to reinstate previous agency policy on how it will enforce False Claims Act (FCA) cases moving forward, and when it will see...