The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit this week decided that an worker can’t convey office discrimination claims in opposition to her former employer underneath the Minnesota Human Rights Act as a result of she does not qualify as an “worker” as an out-of-state resident.
On Wednesday, the federal appellate court docket affirmed a abstract judgment resolution in favor of Medtronic USA, a well being care expertise firm based mostly in Minneapolis. The court docket agreed with the U.S. District Court docket for the District of Minnesota that Jan Kuklenski could not convey claims in opposition to her former employer underneath the MHRA as a result of she wasn’t an “worker” as outlined by state legislation. On attraction, Kuklenski challenged the court docket’s interpretation of the statutory time period and whether or not the act required an “worker” to have a bodily presence within the state.
