Judge Ann Montgomery (D. Minn.) tackled this interesting question on a recent motion to dismiss in the case of Stepan v. Bloomington Burrito Group, LLC, No. 14-CV-03288 (ADM/TNL) (D. Minn. Dec. 22, 2014). Plaintiffs sued the Mexican-themed fast-food restaurant where they had worked for reverse discrimination, claiming they were fired because none of them was Hispanic or of Mexican origin.
Defendants in the suit were two inter-related corporate entities, one of which argued that it could not be sued because it was not the Plaintiffs’ employer under either federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination. At this early stage of the litigation, the Court considered the motion with the facts most favorable to Plaintiffs, and determined that both the “on the ground” restaurant operator and its corporate parent could be sued as jointly employing the Plaintiffs.
In doing so, the Court noted that under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a federal statute, the definition of employer includes only those businesses with 15 or more employees for each day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). But under Minnesota’s comparable Human Rights Act, an employer is defined as “a person who has one or more employees.” Minn. Stat. §363A.03, subd. 16. One could imagine a comparable situation in which a restaurant with 10 workers could be an “employer” under the MHRA, and therefore potentially liable for alleged discrimination, but would be free from liability under Title VII because it was not an “employer” under federal law.
It’s a bit of a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a tortilla.
As for the merits of the case, it will be interesting to see how the Court treats the Plaintiffs’ theory of reverse racial and ethnic discrimination once the facts unfold.
Dawn Van Tassel, owner of Van Tassel Law Firm, represents businesses in commercial disputes and employment-law matters.