The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of a disability discrimination claim under Minnesota law, brought against a Minnesota employer by a remote employee, because the employee did not work in Minnesota and therefore the state law was not applicable.
The appellate court, in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., looked to the plain language of the statutory definition of employee — an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state – and held that physical presence in Minnesota was required under the Minnesota statute.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s proposal for a “contact-based approach” that would consider several factors such as the location of her supervisors and the extent of her work communications with people in the state. The court supported its decision by noting that the Minnesota anti-discrimination law expressly states that “[i]t is the public policy of this state to secure for persons in this state, freedom from discrimination,” because “[s]uch discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state.”
This case highlights the complex interstate issues that arise when companies employ remote workers in states in which they do not have an office. Determining which state’s law applies to remote workers can depend on the specific text of the potentially-applicable statutes, as well as precedent in the relevant states and where the claim is brought. Employers should use caution when employing remote employees and consider all laws that may be applicable.