While an increasing number of employers have issued mandates or announced their intentions in recent months to require their remote employees to return to the office, it’s safe to assume that some employees may continue to work on a remote basis. For their employers, it’s important to remember that many employment laws are state-based and may vary by jurisdiction. Examples of employment issues that can be controlled by a state or a city’s laws include:
- Income taxes
- Leave or paid leave
- Workers’ compensation
- Substance testing
- Marijuana or medical marijuana
- Unemployment benefits
If you have employees working out-of-state on a remote basis, which laws apply to those remote workers – the laws where they work, or the laws where the employer is located? What if the employee works both remotely and on-site? As a recent Minnesota federal court case demonstrates, the answer is not always cut and dried.
Remote employee fired
Jan Kuklenski began working for Medtronic USA, Inc., a Minnesota-based medical device company, in 1999. Although she never lived in Minnesota, she occasionally traveled to the state for work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Medtronic directed all employees to work remotely, and Kuklenski did not travel to Minnesota for work any time after February 2020.
In June 2021, Kuklenski began three months of approved medical leave. In early September 2021, she requested three more months of leave. Medtronic filled her position in October 2021 and then terminated her employment two months later. At that point, Kuklenski filed a lawsuit against her former employer claiming Medtronic had violated Minnesota’s employment discrimination law by firing her based upon her disability.
Not enough physical presence
Minnesota’s discrimination law applies to “an individual …. who resides or works in [the] state.” The federal appeals court deciding Kuklenski’s case acknowledged that employees who work both in and outside Minnesota could be covered by the law, but observed that the Minnesota law required “some degree of physical presence” in the state by a plaintiff.
Kuklenski first argued that the Minnesota law should apply to her because she had visited Minnesota in the past for work. The court rejected that argument because she had not been in the state from February 2020 through her December 2021 termination date.
Next, Kuklenski contended her frequent communications with supervisors and clients via telephone, email and virtually should be sufficient contact to make the Minnesota law applicable to her. Finding that a physical presence in the state was required, the court also rejected Kuklenski’s “other contacts” argument and dismissed her disability discrimination lawsuit against Medtronic.
Here’s the lesson
I’m not saying that a court’s interpretation of Minnesota law and a remote worker necessarily applies to Oklahoma employers. Whether you are dealing with income tax, unemployment, or other state-based employment laws, answers will turn on the particular circumstances of the employee’s remote work and the specific state laws at issue. What the Kuklenski case does, though, is alert Oklahoma employers to the fact that they should not automatically assume Oklahoma employment laws apply to out-of-state remote employees.
Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. 4/9/25)
