Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co.

Why This Case Matters

Sexual harassment in the workplace takes different forms under Minnesota law. Sometimes it involves a supervisor conditioning a job benefit on sexual favors. Other times it involves a pattern of conduct that makes the workplace hostile or intimidating. Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co. is significant because the Supreme Court clarified that these are two distinct claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act – and that a hostile work environment claim does not require the employee to prove economic loss like lost pay or a demotion. This removed a barrier that had been preventing some harassment victims from pursuing their claims.

The Facts

Three employees of Two Harbors Fish Company and BWZ Enterprises sued for sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Brian Zapolski, the sole owner of both companies, was the alleged harasser. The employees also sought to hold Zapolski personally liable under the MHRA’s aiding-and-abetting provision. The district court dismissed all claims, applying a standard that required proof of economic loss for any sexual harassment claim. The Court of Appeals reversed on the harassment claims but held Zapolski could not be individually liable as an aider and abettor of his own conduct. The Supreme Court took the case to clarify the correct legal standards.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court held that the MHRA recognizes two distinct types of sexual harassment. The first involves harassment that is used as a factor in employment decisions – such as hiring, firing, or promotion – where economic impact is relevant. The second involves conduct that creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment – where no economic loss needs to be shown. The district court had erroneously required proof of economic loss for all harassment claims, which was wrong as to hostile work environment claims. On individual liability, the court held that Zapolski – as the person who actually committed the harassment – could not also be held liable as an “aider and abettor” of the employer’s resulting liability, because that would create impermissible circular liability.

What This Means for You

• You do not need to lose your job to have a harassment claim: If your workplace has become hostile, intimidating, or offensive due to sexual harassment, you may have a claim under the MHRA even if you have not been fired, demoted, or suffered any economic loss. The harassment itself is the harm.
• Minnesota law provides broad protections: The MHRA applies to employers with one or more employees – broader than federal Title VII, which generally applies to employers with 15 or more. The MHRA also covers harassment that is not necessarily directed at a specific person because of their sex.
• Document the conduct: If you are experiencing harassment at work, keep records of what happened, when, who was involved, and any witnesses. Report the conduct through your employer’s complaint process if one exists. These records are important if you decide to pursue a legal claim.