Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
May 7, 2025
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a remote worker was unable to bring a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) because she was not an “employee” as defined by the statute. See Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8285 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025). This ruling does not preclude remote workers from ever invoking the MHRA. Rather, the ruling signifies that remote workers must have a regular, physical presence in Minnesota to do so.
The Facts
Jan Kuklenski filed a lawsuit alleging that Medtronic violated the MHRA by terminating her employment due to her disability. Kuklenski had worked for Medtronic from 1999 until 2021. Medtronic is a Minnesota-based company, but Kuklenski never resided in Minnesota. Kuklenski had occasionally traveled to Minnesota for work. However, in early 2020, Medtronic ordered all employees to work remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Kuklenski did not travel to Minnesota after that time.
In June 2021, Kuklenski took a medical leave of absence. After she extended her leave, Medtronic filled her position in October 2021. In December 2021, Medtronic formally terminated Kuklenski’s employment. Thereafter, Kuklenski filed a disability discrimination claim against Medtronic pursuant to the MHRA. The trial court summarily dismissed the claim on the ground that Kuklenski was not an “employee” within the meaning of the MHRA because she lacked a physical presence in the state for almost two years before Medtronic terminated her employment. Kuklenski appealed the decision to the Eighth Circuit.
The Decision
The Eighth Circuit noted that the MHRA defines an employee as “an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state.” Because Kuklenski did not reside in Minnesota, the court examined the legislature’s intent behind the term “works in.” Ultimately, the court concluded that the term “works in” requires some degree of physical presence in the state, a holding that is consistent with the MHRA’s statement of public policy. The court rejected Kuklenski’s argument that an individual can satisfy the definition of “works in” by appearing virtually in Minnesota (for example, an employee appearing in Minnesota virtually via Zoom). The court also rejected Kuklenski’s argument that an individual can satisfy the definition of “works in” by way of a “contact-based approach” (for example, by having communications with clients or supervisors located in Minnesota).
In examining the type of physical presence needed in Minnesota to invoke the MHRA, the court did not provide any bright-line rules. It concluded that the MHRA’s definition of “employee” did not exclude individuals who work both in and outside of Minnesota. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not require a person to be physically present in Minnesota at the time of the alleged discriminatory conduct to qualify as an “employee.”
With respect to Kuklenski, the court held that she was not an “employee” under the MHRA because she had not been present in Minnesota since February 2020. Moreover, no evidence existed to support a finding that she had been habitually present in Minnesota or that the interruption of her presence was temporary. As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of her MHRA claim.
Takeaways
The determination as to whether a remote employee can seek the protections of the MHRA is fact-intensive. There is no “one size fits all” approach. Therefore, employers should consult with counsel to determine whether a remote employee could satisfy the MHRA’s definition (or similar definitions in the statutes of other states).
In addition, employers should keep accurate records of employees’ work locations and travel to determine which state law(s) may apply to their employment.
The author of this article, Maria V. Martin, is a member of the Bars of New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
