Cited by

nable apprehension of immediate bodily harm” (emphasis added)); (interpreting Dahlin as requiring that apprehension of immediate bodily harm be “objectively reasonable” and affirming summary judgment for employer on a statutory claim for threats to discharge an employee seeking workers’-compensation benefits), aff’d

In other words, at the third step the employee must show “that the employer’s stated reason for its action was more likely than not pretextual.” d 656, 671 (Minn. App. 2013), aff’d

See Hanson, d at 371-72 (MHRA claims) ; - 71 (Minn. App. 2013) (WCA claims), aff’d

v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc., – 71 (Minn. 2008), precludes Henry from claiming a constructive discharge to support her disparate treatment claim.2 In doing so, the court of appeals explained that “the Minnesota Supreme Court has declined to extend the Frieler defense beyond hostile-work-environment claims.” Henry, d at 679 ().

(declining to extend the affirmative defense to claims beyond hostile -work-environment s exual harassment).

see also Schmitz v. U.S. Steel Corp. , , 677 (Minn. 2014).

“The statute proscribes three forms of c onduct: discharging an employee for seeking workers’ compensation benefits; threateni ng to discharge an employee for seeking benefits; and intentionally obstructing an employee seeking benefits.” aff’d

In 6 determining whether a litigant has a right to a jury trial , “[w]e focus not on wh ether the exact cause of action existed, but on the type of action—whether the claim is a n action at law, for which the Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial, or an action in equity, for which there is no constitutional guarantee of a jury trial.”

constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury if a party raising that same theory for relief at the time the Minnesota Constitution was adopted also would have been entitled to a jury trial.”

aff’d, d 669 (Minn. 2014).

(determining that a retaliatory-discharge claim under the Workers’ 2 To the extent that Larson suggests that all claims under the MWA are subject to the 2-year statute of limitations in section 541.07(1), Larson is overruled.

-71 (Minn. App. 2013), aff’d

“The right to a jury trial must be found either in the Minnesota Constitution or provided specifically by statute.” (quotation omitted).

-71 (Minn. App. 2013) (citations omitted), aff’d