MHRA applies only to workers who work in MN at time of termination

A federal district court in Minnesota recently ruled the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) didn’t apply to an employee who lived outside Minnesota and previously traveled to the state occasionally for work, even though he reported to supervisors based in Minnesota and his employment agreement contained a provision stating it was to be governed by Minnesota law. In other words, the court held the employer didn’t violate the MHRA because the Act doesn’t protect workers who live and work outside Minnesota at the time of their discharge.

Facts

A longtime employee was let go as a result of a business unit reorganization and was replaced by a black woman. He sued his former employer under the MHRA.

During his employment, he reported to executives based in Minnesota but lived and worked in Kansas. He used to travel to Minnesota about four times a year as part of his employment but began traveling less in 2017. His last business trip to Minnesota was in November 2019. He regularly traveled for work to places other than Minnesota in 2020 and 2021 before his discharge.