Cited by

–400 (Minn. 1979), for instance, we concluded that an employer’s policy that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities from its income maintenance plan was per se sex discrimination in violation of the MHRA, even though the employer was seemingly motivated by cost.

6—are distinguishable from this matter.

se, Cooper contends that the district court correctly characterized her evidence as direct evidence, and correctly determined that USAPL is liable to her as a matter of law, on the ground that USAPL adopted and enforced “a facially discriminatory policy.” In support of that contention, Cooper cites only one opinion arising under the MHRA: Minnesota Mining & (3M).

(3M) (holding that “the exclusion of pregnancy-related absences from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination within the meaning of the Minnesota Human Rights Act”).

The MDHR’s opinion The MDHR’s interpretat ion of the MHRA is entitled to “great weight.” Minn. Mining & Mfg., Co. v. State , -400 (Minn. 1979).

Kolton contends that we rejected the rationale underlying these decisions — that an employer does not discriminate because of disability if employees have equal access to the same LTD plan even if the plan distinguishes between mental and physical disabilities — in Minnesota Mining and *409

(citing Steere v. State, Dep’t of Public Welfare, 308 Minn. 390 , ).

(“Since only women face the risk of becoming pregnant, excluding only pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination”), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1041 , 100 S.Ct.

We adhere to our holding in Minnesota Mining & (3M), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1041 , 100 S.Ct.

1 (A) Since the facts are undisputed, (3M), rather than the holding of Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 , 102 S.Ct.

Consolidated claims the time limits are jurisdictional, appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1041 , 100 S.Ct.