By Steve Fiebiger
•
08 Aug, 2021
The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision on July 26, 2021 in an age discrimination case under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) containing helpful language for proving the third and fourth elements of the prima facie case. The four-part prima facie case must be established for most discrimination claims under the McDonnel Douglas test used by the courts. The case is Henry v. Independent School District #625, a/k/a St. Paul Public Schools, Case No. A21-0004. For the third element requiring evidence the employee suffered an adverse employment action, the Court observed that "the concept of an adverse employment action is broader than proof of discharge or constructive discharge, and may also be proved if an employee presents evidence that, when considered cumulatively, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude the employee suffered a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment discharge." Op. at 15. The Court focused on the use of three performance evaluations in less than a year; exaggeration of trivial performance issues to support discipline; placement of the employee on an unachievable PIP with the intent that the employee would fail or resign; issuance of a letter threatening termination if she didn't accomplish the goals of the unachievable PIP; more harsh reprimands than for other employees; denied opportunity to attend a training session; and comments by the lead manager creating an environment where employees were reluctant to report discriminatory conduct. Id. at 15-16. The cumulative effect of these actions caused the employee to suffer an adverse employment action. The Court also used a more flexible standard for the fourth element by ruling it could be satisfied upon a showing that circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination, in lieu of having to show the employee was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. Id. at 14. In age cases this required replacement by a younger person. Hence, evidence of pretext can be used to satisfy this element if the employee has not been replaced by a person outside the protected class. This may well gain review by the supreme court, but since the decision was designated as precedential by the Court of Appeals, it will be useful until the supreme court rules otherwise.
Share On: