|
|
WHAT |
Minnesota Human Rights Act Update
|
AUTHOR(S) |
Representative Kelly Moller, District 42A, chief author
|
AT ISSUE
|
The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) protect Minnesota’s employees from workplace sexual harassment which is defined as: 363A.03 Subd. 43. Sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment" includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature when: (1) submission to that conduct or communication is made a term or condition, either explicitly or implicitly, of obtaining employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing; (2) submission to or rejection of that conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting that individual's employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing; or (3) that conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment…[i], or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, public accommodations, public services, educational, or housing environment.
Courts have created a barrier to employer action and employee relief in that “an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment” must be ‘severe or pervasive’ before an employer is required to act to protect the employee from harassment. Reporting harassment has its own risks, and a victim who reports early instances of harassment before it meets the “high threshold,” may be legally ignored, giving the victim no relief and leaving her open to more harassment and retaliation. Meritorious cases are dismissed without ever going to a jury trial; wrongdoers keep harassing and barriers to equal opportunity in the workplace remain intact.
Minnesota Courts have recognized the need for the legislature to act:
“It is not a leap to say that gone are the days when men can use the workplace to further their prurient interests,” he added. “Unwanted sexual advances, belittling sexual banter, touching, and mocking sexual language are no longer viewed as merely boorish, obnoxious, chauvinistic, or immature—they should be actionable.” Judge Mel Dickstein
“The line of cases addressing claims asserted by plaintiff is clear. Although each case is unique…the standard is high. The defendant should take no solace in prevailing on summary judgement in this case, nor interpret this decision as condoning management’s disinterest in taking simple, reasonable steps to deal with the troubling customers. The plaintiff deserved better from her employer.
Arbitrator - Judge Mary Pawlenty (retired)
|
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM |
|
KEY TALKING POINTS |
|