Minnesota Court of Appeals Reverses Sexual Harassment Trial Order

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s trial order holding four female employees did not prove their hostile work environment claim for sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. (opinion) At trial, the evidence showed the owner and sole shareholder made repeated sexually explicit and inappropriate comments to the employees, showed employees nude photos from Playboy, tried giving female employees pornographic movies and touched the female employees.

Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s trial order holding four female employees did not prove their hostile work environment claim for sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  At trial, the evidence showed the owner and sole shareholder made repeated sexually explicit and inappropriate comments to the employees, showed employees nude photos from Playboy, tried giving female employees pornographic movies and touched the female employees.  The court of appeals held this evidence was sufficient to establish a hostile environment claim for sexual harassment and emphasized the district court’s error in relying on federal Title VII case law rather than the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  Applying the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which defines sexual harassment, to include “sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature. . .”, the court of appeals held it was clear the conduct constituted sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment.

This case demonstrates the difference between Minnesota and federal case law concerning sexual harassment.  It also illustrates the type of evidence that is relevant when considering what workplace conduct constitutes sexual harassment.  Here, the sexually harassing conduct was made by the owner/supervisor and was repeatedly directed toward multiple female employees.  Further, the sexually inappropriate conduct was also well beyond what some courts have called mere “boorish” behavior.  When considered together, the conduct in this case is a clear example of a sexually hostile work environment that is illegal in Minnesota workplaces.  If you are experiencing a sexually hostile work environment, contact one of the sexual harassment attorneys at Wanta Thome.