ST. PAUL, MN - Today, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights released its Case Summaries in Enforcement that spans four years and myriad discrimination charges including age, race, disability, national origin, gender, pregnancy, religion, sexual orientation and reprisal.

These cases represent a portion of the approximately 2,400 cases the Department investigated from 2011 to 2015. The cases include well-publicized cases such as the wedding venue that denied service to a same-sex couple and the hearing-impaired female that sought a loan modification and allegedly was refused a reasonable accommodation request to solely communicate with her by email. The cases also give a glimpse into the broad range of discrimination complaints filed with the Department.

MDHR investigators within the Department are responsible for investigating claims of discrimination in areas such as business, credit, education, employment, housing, public accommodation and public services.

"Our hope is that the citizens of Minnesota will better understand the Minnesota Human Rights Act through these cases to see the many faces of discrimination throughout the state," Commissioner Kevin Lindsey said. "All individuals in Minnesota are protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Filing is easy, free and does not require an attorney to file."

Cases reveal stories of discrimination throughout the state. "By shining a light on discrimination, we can educate, change policies and begin to alter behaviors to reduce discrimination and create a more inclusive environment," Lindsey said.

Cases show alleged discrimination in workplaces, businesses and schools such as these.

• Letourneau v. Bank of America - Bank of America paid $155,000 to resolve a probable cause finding of discrimination by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights concerning the processing of a home loan modification for Kathryn Letourneau, the hearing-impaired customer. The charging party sought a loan modification with the respondent. The charging party's husband asked that the respondent communicate with the charging party solely via e-mail. The respondent did not honor this request. After review of the evidence, the Department concluded the respondent's denial of service was attributable to the respondent's refusal to reasonably accommodate the charging party by communicating with her solely via e-mail. The matter was resolved through conciliation where the respondent agreed to provide training to staff, pay damages and attorney fees to the charging party, and allow the charging party, contingent on final FHA loan payment, to assume the mortgage loan.
• Hinrichs v. Alexandria Light and Power - Alexandria Light and Power paid $65,000 to resolve a Minnesota Department of Human Rights' finding of probable cause that discrimination occurred related to the termination of its former Information Technology Administrator Richard Hinrichs. During his employment, the charging party had his right leg amputated just below the knee. After surgery, but before the charging party returned to work, the respondent gave the charging party a revised job description, which included the requirement to lift 50 lbs, climb ladders, and crawl into tight spaces. The charging party's attorney sent a letter to respondent requesting removal of certain elements from the revised job description. Several months the after charging party returned to work, he received a warning letter stating the respondent's general manager would be monitoring his work performance. The Department's investigation found the respondent's general manager sought to embarrass Hinrichs and that the respondent's actions were pretext. This matter was resolved through conciliation where the respondent agreed to provide training to all its management and supervisory employees and pay damages and attorney fees to the charging party.
• Altenburg v. Jack Links Beef Jerky - Jack Link's Beef Jerky agreed to pay a former employee $50,000 after the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued a probable cause discrimination finding for sexual harassment and constructive discharge. Altenburg, a female, was employed by the respondent. The charging party worked with a male supervisor who created a sexually hostile working environment. The charging party complained, which resulted in the supervisor being given a written warning. Two weeks later, the supervisor was promoted to charging party's direct supervisor. The Department's investigation found the charging party was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex, reprisal, and constructive discharge. This matter was resolved through conciliation where the respondent agreed to provide training for managerial and supervisory employees and pay damages to the charging party.
• B.R. v. Electro Static Corp. - The respondent's supervisor, a male, made inappropriate sexual comments to and physically touched the charging party. The charging party, an undocumented worker, informed him his conduct was unwelcome. The respondent's supervisor persisted and took photos of the charging party over her objection; pulled up her blouse; asked her to show him her underwear; pretended to unzip his pants in the charging party's face while she was working on her knees; and drove past her home and attempted to enter when her husband wasn't home. The charging party stopped speaking to the respondent and sought to avoid all contact with him. The respondent's supervisor immediately began to become critical of all aspects of her work performance. The charging party was then informed by the respondent's Vice-President that her employment was being terminated because of her supervisor's complaints. The Department's investigation found a sexually hostile working environment and retaliation by the manager as a result of B.R. rejecting his sexual advances. The matter was resolved through conciliation. Electro Static Corp. paid B.R. and her attorneys $45,000.
• LeClaire v. Brian Fanfulik/Liquor Pig - The owner of a St. Cloud liquor store paid a former employee and her attorneys $30,000 after the Department of Human Rights found probable cause to believe he had sexually harassed her. The Department also found that, after she complained about the harassment, store owner Brian Fanfulik engaged in reprisal by making her working conditions intolerable.
• Hashi v. County of Hennepin - Hashi is a Muslim woman of Somali national origin who went to the respondent to obtain services. While obtaining services, Hashi realized it was time for required prayer and was given permission to pray in a small area near the work cube of the respondent's representative. While Hashi was praying, a different representative of the respondent came out, ordered Hashi to move, touched Hashi in an effort to move her, moved Hashi's belongings, and continued to do so after being told Hashi was given permission to pray. This matter was resolved through conciliation where the respondent agreed to provide training through the Council on American-Islamic Relations, develop or review policies and procedures, notify employees of designated meditation/ prayer space, issue a letter of apology, and pay damages of $1,500.

Read more about the /mdhr/assets/Case_Summaries_Report_tcm1061-213368.pdfCase Studies in Enforcement or how to file a claim by visiting mn.gov/mdhr, liking us on Facebook, or following us on Twitter at @mnhumanrights.

###

Contact: Christine Dufour at 651-539-1118
or Christine.Dufour@state.mn.us

Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Communications Department
Freeman Building, 625 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55155