Federal Appeals Court Rejects Remote Worker’s State Law Claim Based on Physical Presence: Key Takeaways for Employers
With so many employees working remotely these days, it can be confusing to determine which state they actually work from – and which laws apply to the employment relationship. Is their home office in a different state than the corporate office they report to? Does the employee travel between locations? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently grappled with these questions under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and found that an employee who did not reside or work in Minnesota was not protected by the state law . In an April 9 decision, the court said remote work coupled with occasional business travel to Minnesota is not sufficient to be classified as working within the state under the MHRA . Here’s what employers with remote staff should know about the ruling in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA , what it means for Minnesota businesses, and how it might influence your policies and practices in other states. What Happened? Taking a deep di...