The Eighth Circuit has held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) “provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs.” Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894, 903 (8th Cir. 2024)

In Ringhofer, five employees sued The Mayo Clinic “for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act”. Mayo required all employees to either receive the COVID-19 vaccine or, if such employees were exempt, submit to weekly testing. Later, the clinic notified all employees that they must comply with the policy by January 3 or be terminated. Mayo denied religious accommodations to three of the five plaintiffs and granted religious accommodations to the other two, but required them to test weekly, which they refused. All five plaintiffs were subsequently terminated.

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, in part, on the basis that “the MHRA does not have a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.” Ringhofer, 102 F.4th at 903.

Lack of Guidance from Minnesota Supreme Court

The Eighth Circuit had to render its interpretation without the benefit of an opinion by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has not taken up the issue before. The court noted that, “[i]f the Minnesota Supreme Court has not spoken on a particular issue, we must attempt to predict how the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide an issue”. Ringhofer, 102 F.4th at 903.

The MHRA’s Liberal Construction Provides a Cause of Action

The Eighth Circuit, comparing the MHRA to Title VII, found that the MHRA should be construed to provide a cause of action for the failure to accommodate religious beliefs.

Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of certain enumerated traits, including religion. The MHRA is Minnesota’s state-specific version of Title VII. Both statutes provide that it is unlawful for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a person because of their religion. Compare 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1), with Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 2. However, under Title VII, the definition of “religion” “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(j) (emphasis added). The MHRA provides no such language.

This statutory discrepancy led an earlier Minnesota federal court to hold that, “[w]hile both Title VII and the MHRA prohibit religious discrimination in employment, only Title VII explicitly requires employers to provide religious accommodations to employees.” Balow v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., No. CV 22-1668 ADM/JFD, 2023 WL 2776028, at *4 (D. Minn. Apr. 4, 2023), abrogated by Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024).

The Eighth Circuit disagreed with the Barlow court and found that because “[t]he MHRA is a remedial act that should be ‘construed liberally’. . . [t]he district court erred by finding that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs.” Ringhofer, 102 F.4th at 903. Specifically, “[f]ederal law under Title VII, provides relief for failures to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. Due to Minnesota’s precedent of (1) construing liberally the MHRA, and (2) providing its citizens with commiserate, or greater, protections than under federal law, the Minnesota Supreme Court would decide that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs.” Id.

Conclusion

The MHRA provides employees protection against their employers’ failure to accommodate religious beliefs. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to decide the question of whether, under such protections, the plaintiffs would succeed on their claims. This precedent is important for employers to understand and work with their employees who seek religious accommodation. While this case is strongly persuasive on Minnesota state courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court (or even a lower state court) could choose to interpret the MHRA differently from the Eighth Circuit such that the MHRA does not provide for a religious accommodation cause of action.

_______________

About the Author:

Christopher T. Porter is a Minnesota employment attorney located in Minneapolis, Minnesota who handles disputes arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He can be reached at cporter@trepanierlaw.com or at 612.455.6218. Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A. is a Minnesota business law firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota that handles Minnesota employment law. A special thanks to law clerk Joshua M. Ryan for his assistance drafting and researching this article.