The summaries below explain federal and Minnesota employment laws in everyday language. They are general information only, not legal advice. Every situation is different. If you believe your rights have been violated, talk to an employment attorney about the facts of your case.
Discrimination cases generally follow one of two theories.
Disparate treatment means intentional discrimination: the employer treated you worse because of your race, sex, age, disability, or another protected trait. Sometimes there is direct evidence, like a decision-maker's discriminatory statement tied to the decision. But direct proof is rare. Most cases use a three-step framework created by the Supreme Court in a case called McDonnell Douglas:
The employee's initial showing. The employee must show the basics: they belong to a protected group, they were qualified for the job, something bad happened to them at work (like being fired), and the circumstances suggest discrimination — for example, they were replaced by someone outside their protected group, or similar employees outside the group were treated better.
The employer's explanation. The employer must then offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision.
Pretext. Finally, the employee must show that the employer's stated reason is not the real reason — that it is a cover story ("pretext") for discrimination. A common way to do this is to show that similar employees outside the protected group were treated better under similar circumstances. The employee always carries the final burden of proving discrimination.
Mixed motive cases involve decisions driven by both a legitimate reason and a discriminatory one. Under federal law, an employer violates Title VII if discrimination was a motivating factor in the decision, even if other factors also played a role — although remedies are limited if the employer would have made the same decision anyway. Minnesota courts take a different approach: under the MHRA, the employee wins by showing the employer was more likely than not motivated by the unlawful reason, and it does not matter that the employer would have made the same decision anyway. Note that age discrimination cases under federal law are stricter: the employee must prove age was the "but-for" cause of the decision.
Disparate impact means unintentional discrimination. A policy that looks neutral on paper — like a test, physical requirement, or screening rule — may be illegal if it disproportionately screens out members of a protected group and the employer cannot prove the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. No proof of bad intent is required. Even if the employer justifies the policy, the employee can still win by showing a less discriminatory alternative would have worked just as well.
These summaries reflect the law as described in current legal reference materials and are provided for general education. Laws change, deadlines are strict, and small facts can make a big difference. If you have questions about your specific situation, begin a free case evaluation to discuss your situation.