Plaintiff Jan Kuklenski sued defendant Medtronic USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota raising claims of disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The district court granted summary judgment to Medtronic after concluding that Kuklenski could not bring claims under the MHRA because she was not an “employee” as defined by the statute, and Kuklenski appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Kuklenski began working for Medtronic, a Minnesota-based company, in 1999 and continued working there until her termination in December 2021. Throughout her employment, Kuklenski never resided in Minnesota. While she occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Medtronic ordered all employees to work remotely in early 2020, and Kuklenski did not travel to Minnesota for work at any time after February 2020.
In June 2021, Kuklenski went on medical leave. After her initial three-month approved leave expired, she sought another three months of leave in early September 2021. Medtronic did not keep her position open and filled it in October 2021, formally terminating Kuklenski in December 2021.
Kuklenski filed suit in the District of Minnesota, asserting that Medtronic improperly terminated her in violation of the MHRA due to her disability. The district court granted summary judgment to Medtronic after finding that Kuklenski did not satisfy the MHRA’s definition of “employee” because she did not have any physical presence in Minnesota for almost two years before she was fired.
Legal Analysis
Interpretation of “Employee” Under the MHRA:
The court reviewed de novo both the district court’s grant of summary judgment and its interpretation of state law. As a federal court sitting in diversity, the Eighth Circuit applied Minnesota substantive law and was bound by decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Since the Minnesota Supreme Court had not addressed this particular issue, the court attempted to predict how it would decide the question.
The MHRA defines an employee as “an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state.” Since Kuklenski never resided in Minnesota, the only dispute was whether she “works in this state” as required by the statute, and specifically whether this requires physical presence in Minnesota.
The court examined the plain meaning of the phrase “works in this state” using dictionary definitions, noting that “works” means “to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary” and “in” is “a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits.” The court determined that one who “works in” Minnesota performs labor “within the limits, bounds, or area of” the state, which requires physical presence.
The statutory context supported this reading, as the neighboring verb “resides” is also limited by “in” and clearly requires physical presence in Minnesota. Additionally, the MHRA states its purpose is “to secure for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination” because such discrimination “threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state,” further supporting an interpretation requiring physical presence.
The court rejected Kuklenski’s argument that “in” need not be defined by physical boundaries, finding that the common meaning of “works in this state” requires physical presence within Minnesota’s boundaries.
Extent of Physical Presence Required:
The court acknowledged that the statute does not necessarily exclude a person who works both in and outside Minnesota, and it does not require a person to be physically present in Minnesota at the time of the discriminatory conduct. However, Kuklenski had not been present in Minnesota from February 2020 until her termination in December 2021—almost two years. The court found this absence was not merely temporary, and there was no evidence of a “customary or habitual” pattern of travel to Minnesota that was merely “interrupted.”
The court also rejected Kuklenski’s proposed “contact-based approach” that would consider non-physical contacts with Minnesota, such as having supervisors based in the state or communicating with clients there. The court found that the statute requires physical presence and does not contemplate a multifactor test.
Certification Request:
Kuklenski asked the Eighth Circuit to certify to the Minnesota Supreme Court the question of how to define “employee” under the MHRA. The court declined this request for several reasons: (1) Kuklenski did not seek certification until after the adverse judgment, despite being on notice of the court’s skepticism of her proposed approach; (2) she chose to file in federal court initially; and (3) the case did not present a close question of state law.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Medtronic.
Schrag on Law 