Opinion ID: 1818552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Minnesota Human Rights Act Claim

Text: We first address whether Anoka County discriminated against Kolton because of her disability in violation of Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c). Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review. Hince v. O'Keefe, 632 N.W.2d 577, 582 (Minn.2001); Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., 457 N.W.2d 188, 190 (Minn.1990). When we interpret a statute, our goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2000); Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn. 2001). We will not disregard the words of a statute if they are free from ambiguity. Minn.Stat. § 645.16; State v. Gorman, 546 N.W.2d 5, 8 (Minn.1996). Kolton asserts that the county violated Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c), which states, Except when based on a bona fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice [f]or an employer, because of    disability    to discriminate against a person with respect to    compensation, terms,    or privileges of employment. The MHRA's definition of discriminate includes segregate or separate. Minn.Stat. § 363.01, subd. 14 (2000). The distinction between mental and physical disabilities in the county's LTD plan arguably constitutes a separation because it sets apart employees who become mentally disabled from those who become physically disabled. On the other hand, the county may not have discriminated on the basis of disability because it provided the same plan on the same terms to its employees. Thus, the language of the statute does not unambiguously answer the question whether providingto all employees equallya disability policy that contains different coverage for different kinds of disabilities amounts to discrimination because of disability. In the past, we have found interpretations of federal anti-discrimination statutes useful to guide our interpretation of the MHRA when the MHRA provisions in question are similar to provisions of the federal statutes. See State by Cooper v. Hennepin County, 441 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Minn.1989) (relying on interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in construing the definition of disabled person under the MHRA); Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 386 N.W.2d 715, 719 (Minn.1986) (acknowledging application of interpretations of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 to interpret MHRA because of similarities between the statutes). When provisions of the MHRA are not similar to provisions of federal anti-discrimination statutes, however, we have departed from the federal rule in our interpretation of the MHRA. See Cummings v. Koehnen, 568 N.W.2d 418, 422 n. 5 (Minn.1997) (acknowledging departure from federal rule because of textual differences between the MHRA and federal statute). Appellants argue that the section of the MHRA at issue in this case, Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c), has a comparable counterpart in Title I of the ADA. They ask us to interpret the MHRA in accord with federal appellate courts' interpretations of Title I. Kolton asserts that the federal courts' interpretations of Title I do not bind this court's interpretation of the MHRA and argues that we have rejected the rationale underlying their interpretations of Title I. Appellants call our attention to the following language of Title I of the ADA: No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to    employee compensation,    and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (1994). Although section 363.03 and section 12112 are not identical, they both prohibit employment discrimination based on disability. We conclude that the state and federal provisions are sufficiently similar that we should be guided by interpretations of Title I in analyzing Kolton's MHRA claim. The federal courts are essentially unanimous in rejecting the argument that Title I prohibits distinctions between mental and physical disabilities in coverage for long-term disability benefits. See EEOC v. Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d 144, 148-50 (2d Cir.2000); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1116-18 (9th Cir.2000); Kimber v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (10th Cir. 1999); Lewis v. Kmart Corp., 180 F.3d 166, 170 (4th Cir.1999); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 608 (3d Cir. 1998); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1015-16 (6th Cir.1997); EEOC v. CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d 1039, 1044 (7th Cir.1996). [3] Many of the federal appellate courts hold specifically that no discrimination occurs for purposes of Title I of the ADA if all employees enjoy equal access to a LTD plan, even if the policy provides different coverage for mental and physical disabilities. The reasoning of the Seventh Circuit is typical: All employeesthe perfectly healthy, the physically disabled, and the mentally disabledhad a plan that promised them long-term benefits from the onset of disability until age 65 if their problem was physical, and long-term benefits for two years if the problem was mental or nervous. This may or may not be an enlightened way to do things, but it was not discriminatory in the usual sense of the term. CNA Ins. Cos., 96 F.3d at 1044; see Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1116 ([T]here is no discrimination under the [ADA] where disabled individuals are given the same opportunity as everyone else, so insurance distinctions that apply equally to all employees cannot be discriminatory.); Lewis, 180 F.3d at 170 (holding that Title I of the ADA does not require a long-term disability plan that is sponsored by a private employer to provide the same level of benefits for mental and physical disabilities); Ford, 145 F.3d at 608 (So long as every employee is offered the same plan regardless of that employee's contemporary or future disability status, then no discrimination has occurred even if the plan offers different coverage for various disabilities.); Parker, 121 F.3d at 1015 (The disparity in benefits provided in the policy at issue is also not prohibited by the ADA because the ADA does not mandate equality between individuals with different disabilities.). Kolton contends that we rejected the rationale underlying these decisionsthat an employer does not discriminate because of disability if employees have equal access to the same LTD plan even if the plan distinguishes between mental and physical disabilitiesin Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. State, 289 N.W.2d 396 (Minn.1979). Specifically, Kolton argues that in Minnesota Mining, we interpreted discrimination under the MHRA to prohibit an employer from providing inferior benefits to an employee if that decision is based on the type of disability. In Minnesota Mining, we held that the exclusion of pregnancy-related absences from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination within the meaning of the MHRA. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 397. In 1977, more than two years before we decided Minnesota Mining, the legislature amended the MHRA's sex discrimination provisions. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. Before the amendments, the MHRA prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not specifically mention pregnancy and childbirth. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. The amendments defined sex to include pregnancy, childbirth, and related disabilities, and made it an unfair employment practice for an employer to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related disabilities differently from other employees not so affected but who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Act of June 2, 1977, ch. 408, §§ 1, 3, 1977 Minn. Laws 951, 952-54. We stated that the employer's plan obviously violated the MHRA as amended in 1977. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 398. We held that the amendments clarified rather than changed the scope of prohibited sex discrimination under the MHRA. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 399-400. Thus the employer's plan violated the MHRA both before and after the amendments. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 397. Having interpreted the statute before and after the 1977 amendments, we noted that the employer's income maintenance plan covered voluntary cosmetic surgery and injuries resulting from voluntary participation in sports, but did not cover unforeseen and involuntary complications of pregnancy. Id. at 400. We then stated: It seems clear that 3M's plan reflects traditional sexual role stereotypes. Women in their childbearing years are viewed merely as temporary members of the labor force who, as such, do not need income security, since they are most probably supplementing their husbands' incomes and will eventually quit their jobs to become mothers. Since insuring for pregnancy disabilities increases the cost of the plan, pregnancy coverage is simply deleted. If women are to be treated equally, such plans must be designed to insure identical security for women and for men from medical disabilities which may interrupt their income flow. Since only women face the risk of becoming pregnant, excluding only pregnancy-related disabilities from an otherwise comprehensive income maintenance plan is per se sex discrimination. A woman should be no more burdened than a man if she chooses to combine the roles of parent and employee, simply because the woman must bear the child. Id. In Minnesota Mining, we did not hold that coverage of some disabilities and not others alone violated the MHRA. Instead it was the direct correlation between the type of disability not covered and gender that invalidated the employer's plan. Minn. Mining, 289 N.W.2d at 400. Our interpretation in Minnesota Mining relied on the statutory amendment that clarified that the scope of sex discrimination included disabilities related to pregnancy and childbirth. In this case, we are without legislative guidance as to the scope of disability discrimination. Taken to its logical conclusion, Kolton's argument would require employers to cover every conceivable disabling malady equally, a requirement not at all apparent from the MHRA. Another reason cited by several federal appellate court opinions, upon which appellants rely, to interpret Title I of the ADA to not require employers to provide the same coverage for different disabilities is the insurance industry's longstanding practice of offering different benefits for different disabilities and the absence of an explicit legislative condemnation of the practice. The Second Circuit, for example, reasoned as follows: [W]e are persuaded, when reading the language of the statute in light of the long-term history of disability plans, that Title I of the ADA does not require disability benefit plans to provide equal benefits for mental and physical disabilities. The ADA, unclear on its face, does not specifically condemn the historic and nearly universal practice inherent in the insurance industry of providing different benefits for different disabilities. The interpretation of Title I urged upon us    would require far-reaching changes in the way the insurance industry does business. Of course Congress could require those modifications to be made, but we are reluctant to infer such a mandate for radical change absent a clearer legislative command. Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d at 149 (citation omitted); see Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1116 ([H]ad Congress intended to control which coverages had to be offered by employers, it would have spoken more plainly because of the well-established marketing process to the contrary. `Insurers have historically and consistently made distinctions between mental and physical illness in offering health and disability coverage.') (quoting Rogers v. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 174 F.3d 431, 435 (4th Cir.1999)); cf. Ford, 145 F.3d at 608 (The ADA does not require equal coverage for every type of disability; such a requirement, if it existed, would destabilize the insurance industry in a manner definitely not intended by Congress when passing the ADA.). Because the language of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) is similar to that of Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c), we find the federal appellate courts' interpretations of Title I of the ADA useful to guide our interpretation of the MHRA. In this case, Anoka County provided LTD coverage to its employees, without regard to their physical or mental status, at no cost to them. All employees received the same plan on the same terms. The plan contained a limitation that was standard within the insurance industry. Just as Congress could have required those modifications to be made, Staten Island Sav. Bank, 207 F.3d at 149, the Minnesota legislature could have explicitly mandated mental health parity in LTD plans had it intended to upset an established industry practice. [4] We hold that the county did not violate Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 1(2)(c), by providing at no cost to its employees LTD coverage that provided different benefits for mental and physical disabilities. We therefore reverse the court of appeals and reinstate summary judgment on this claim in favor of appellants.