Female employee sued Target for violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but judges denied

A female worker at Target Corporation for 15 years sued Target for violating the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), after being fired for making inappropriate comments to her coworker at work.

According to the legal filing with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Roula Mitchell, a longtime employee with a history of positive performance reviews, claimed her discharge amounted to unfair retaliation.

On a night shift, Mitchell told her manager that her coworker A. W. made a sexualized comment to her.

Mitchell didn’t want her manager to report this to human resources(HR), but the manager said he was obligated to investigate.

According to the legal filing, A.W. was called into the manager’s office and asked if he had said something inappropriate. A.W. admitted. The manager sent him home and provided a detailed report to HR.

On the next day, an HR representative “conduct(ed) a fair, timely, impartial, and thorough investigation” of the incident based on the company’s policy.

The HR person interviewed both Mitchell and A.W. separately. Mitchell reiterated her allegations against A.W., and A.W. admitted to making inappropriate comments but added that the nature of his relationship with Mitchell included such banter.

According to the legal filing with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, A.W. said Mitchell would ask him, an openly gay man, about anal intercourse, sexually related questions, and make comments of a sexual nature.

A.W. described to HR some of the statements that Mitchell had made to him, but Mitchell denied.

According to Target’s Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, if an investigation revealed a violation occurred, it required Target to “take prompt and appropriate remedial measures, including corrective action, up to and including immediate termination.”

The HR person interviewed another Target employee, T. B., who regularly worked with Mitchell and A.W..

T. B. confirmed that A.W. and Mitchell would frequently engage in sexual conversations. T.B. said she did not report those conducts because it did not bother her.

From those interviews, HR confirmed that both A.W. and Mitchell violated the policy and fired both of them.

According to the Court of Appeals, Mitchell knew that a violation of Target’s policy could lead to termination. Although HR had informed Mitchell of Target’s internal appeal process, Mitchell refused to appeal.

Mitchell then sued Target, alleging the corporation violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which protects workers against employer reprisal after uncovering discrimination.

The district court determined that Mitchell failed to show causation between her protected conduct and termination, and she failed to show Target’s legitimate reason for her termination constituted a pretext for reprisal.

After the court ruled in favor of Target, Mitchell appealed again.

The Hennepin County district court reviewed and affirmed that the summary judgment was properly granted.

Presiding Judge Peter Reyes said it was essential to know how much investigation was required in this case. He was concerned that if the court rules otherwise, it will basically tell Target it didn’t do a thorough investigation and that the court can’t insert itself as a super HR department.

Alicia Anderson, the attorney for Mitchell, believes this is an act of retaliation to Mitchell.

In an oral argument, Alicia Anderson said, “I think it is important that she was there for 15 years with no prior complaints against her. If a reasonable jury could say hey, someone who's been there 15 years and they talk like that. They're not going to get by for 15 years with no one's saying anything, especially when their supervisors are trained to do something about sexual harassment.”

Attorneys for Target argued in court that Human Resources had complied with the law by interviewing an impartial third party who was not a friend or relative to either worker, and there was no issue of “inextricable intertwinement” here.

They also pointed out that this is a prima facie case in which the plaintiff has the burden of proof.

Target’s representative attorney, Chris Ruska, emailed that “they have no further comment at this point.”

Anderson, Mitchell's attorney, said she filed a petition for review with the MN Supreme Court.

“If they [MN Supreme Court] accept(s) a review of the case, there may be an argument before them. If they do not, the case is officially dismissed, and Ms. Mitchell has no further recourse against Target,” said Anderson in an email statement.