The trial court, however, found that by disciplining Lind the next working day, ANCC's actions were prompt and appropriate. The refusal by ANCC officials to look at a wound for which appellant did not seek medical attention does not constitute ratification of the kick. ANCC officials were capable of properly disciplining appellant without such an examination. There is no evidence of ratification and the trial court did not err in its application of the law. Sexual harassment against Lind Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the employee's sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination.
The trial court granted summary judgment on appellant's sexual discrimination claim against Lind on the basis that appellant and Lind were co-employees. Relying on Stefanski v. We agree with the determination of the trial court. Minnesota courts, without expressly adopting the Stefanski holding, have focused on the employer's culpability in sexual harassment cases. Emphasis by both the Human Rights Act and Minnesota case law on the employer's conduct in sexual harassment cases demonstrates, we believe, that unless a harassing co-employee is also acting as an agent or supervisor in an official capacity, an action for sexual harassment will not lie against that person.