Employees Have More Ways to Prove a Violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)

By: Chad A. Staul, Esq.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that plaintiffs asserting discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) may prove their claims using a similar method of proof approved by the U.S. Supreme Court for federal claims. See, Friend v. Gopher Company, Inc., A08-1810 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2009) (adopting the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003)). The result is that plaintiffs now have more ways at their disposal to prove a violation of the MHRA.

For some time, both federal and state discrimination claims have been analyzed under one of two methods based upon the nature of the plaintiff's evidence, i.e. either direct or indirect evidence. More often than not, courts have applied the well-known McDonnell Douglas burden shifting method, where the plaintiff proves a "prima facie" case which shifts the burden to the defendant employer to state a legitimate business reason for its challenged decision(s). Less often, a plaintiff might be entitled to a "direct evidence" analysis where there was such compelling evidence of discrimination that the employer was left only to try to prove that it would have taken the same action regardless of the apparent discrimination.

In 2003, the Supreme Court in Desert Palace held that circumstantial evidence, if compelling enough, could constitute so-called "direct evidence," entitling a plaintiff to circumvent the somewhat more onerous McDonnell Douglas analysis. Finding guidance from this decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined to do away with the sometimes confusing distinction between "direct" and "circumstantial" evidence and, instead, introduced the new terminology of "affirmative evidence" that may be either direct or circumstantial in nature. The court in the Friend case stated that "[l]ike Title VII, the MHRA includes no statutory language limiting the types of evidence that may be used to prove a discrimination claim . . . like the federal common law cited in Desert Palace, Minnesota law 'makes no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence as to the degree of proof required.'"

Although most claims will likely continue to be analyzed under the more favorable McDonnell Douglas burden shifting method, this decision will no doubt be welcomed by plaintiff lawyers in the employment field as it will expand the kinds of cases that may be analyzed under the direct method of proof plaintiffs prefer. Just what employers need in today's economy - a decision making it easier for employees to successfully sue their employers!