Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.
2013 Minn. LEXIS 274
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Employees Rasmussen, Moyer, and Reinhold alleged MHRA violations by Two Harbors Fish Co. and BWZ Enterprises based on supervisor Zapolski’s sexual harassment; Zapolski is sole owner of both entities.
- District court dismissed with prejudice; court of appeals reversed and held Zapolski not liable as an aider and abettor, but affirmed dismissal on merits.
- Supreme Court identified two legal errors: (1) district court relied on harassment directed at men as well as women; (2) district court conflated lack of adverse employment actions with non-actionable conduct.
- Court remanded for reevaluation under the correct legal standard and for further fact-finding consistent with this opinion.
- Court also held Zapolski cannot be held individually liable as an aider and abettor under MHRA, leaving employer liability intact under vicarious liability.”
- Concurrences discuss standard of review for hostile environment claims (objective de novo; subjective clear-error) and disagree with remand in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zapolski’s conduct was actionable hostile environment harassment under MHRA. | Rasmussen et al. show conduct was severe/pervasive. | Zapolski’s conduct not sufficiently severe/pervasive; some conduct directed at men. | Remand required; district court applied incorrect standard. |
| Whether district court erred by requiring adverse employment action to find harassment actionable. | Severity/pervasiveness alone suffices under MHRA §363A.03(3). | Lack of adverse actions undermines harassment claim. | Legal error; clear remand warranted. |
| Whether Zapolski can be liable as an aider and abettor under MHRA §363A.14. | Owners can be liable; Zapolski may be individually liable for aiding and abetting. | Aiding-and-abetting liability not intended where employer liability already exists and individual is sole harasser. | Zapolski cannot be held individually liable as an aider and abettor. |
| What is the proper standard of review for the objective and subjective components of a hostile environment claim? | De novo for both objective and subjective. | Mixed standard or deferential review appropriate. | Remand to apply de novo for objective and clearly erroneous for subjective, but no definitive resolution of standard on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Continental Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1980) (sexual harassment extends to workplace conditions; discrimination on the basis of sex includes harassment)
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile work environment framework; no need to prove economic injury)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (requires both objective and subjective components of hostility)
- Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 1997) (sex-based harassment framework under MHRA)
- Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 2008) (MHRA interpreted with federal Title VII principles)