Paulausky v. Mayo Clinic
- Michael Davis
- 0:25-cv-00165
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
In Paulausky v. Mayo Clinic, Judge Michael J. Davis dismissed the three Minnesota Human Rights Act claims brought by a remote worker who never physically worked or lived in Minnesota, and also dismissed as time-barred any state and federal disability discrimination claims based on events before December 15, 2021 (state) or February 18, 2022 (federal), while allowing the remaining federal ADA claims to proceed.
Remote employees who live outside Minnesota but work for Minnesota-based employers, who may be unable to bring claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act due to the physical-presence requirement. Also relevant to any plaintiff bringing disability discrimination or accommodation claims under the ADA or MHRA, given the strict time limits for filing administrative charges and the rule that each denied accommodation request starts a new limitations clock.
What happened
In Paulausky v. Mayo Clinic, Nichole Paulausky, a remote Health Information Services Specialist employed by Mayo Clinic since 2021, sued her employer for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate her disabilities, as well as retaliation. She worked from home in Illinois and then Tennessee, never in Minnesota. She brought claims under both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), a state civil rights law. Mayo Clinic moved to partially dismiss the case, targeting all three MHRA claims and any time-barred portions of the remaining claims.
The court first addressed whether Paulausky could sue under the MHRA, which protects only employees who either live or work in Minnesota. Relying heavily on a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., the court held that 'working in' Minnesota requires a physical presence in the state — not just remote digital contacts like emails, video calls, or access to computer systems located there. Because Paulausky never physically worked in Minnesota, she could not use the MHRA, regardless of the fact that her employer is based there. The court also ruled that some of her claims were filed too late: under the MHRA, a complaint must be filed within 365 days of a discriminatory act, and under the ADA, within 300 days. Since Paulausky filed her federal agency complaint in December 2022, claims tied to events before December 15, 2021 (MHRA) and before February 18, 2022 (ADA) were untimely.
Judge Michael J. Davis granted Mayo Clinic's motion for partial dismissal. The three MHRA claims (Counts 1, 2, and 5) were dismissed entirely — those based on events before December 15, 2021 with prejudice (meaning they cannot be refiled), and those based on events after that date without prejudice (meaning they could potentially be refiled, though the court's jurisdictional ruling effectively bars any MHRA claim). ADA claims based on events before February 18, 2022 were also dismissed with prejudice. The court struck specific paragraphs from the complaint and ordered Paulausky to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The remaining ADA discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, and retaliation claims (Counts 3, 4, and 6) covering events from February 18, 2022 onward were not dismissed and may continue.
The detailed version
- Paulausky v. Mayo Clinic, Civil File No. 25-00165 (MJD/DLM), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Michael J. Davis
Background
Plaintiff Nichole Paulausky has been employed by Mayo Clinic as a Health Information Services Specialist since August 2021, working remotely from her home in Illinois and later Tennessee. She has never lived or physically worked in Minnesota. Mayo Clinic is a non-profit corporation headquartered in Rochester, Minnesota. Paulausky alleges she has multiple disabilities and that Mayo repeatedly denied her reasonable accommodations, including denial of intermittent leave (September–October 2021), denial of a laptop, and improper delivery of a sit/stand desk requiring assembly she could not perform. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on December 15, 2022, cross-filed with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR). The EEOC found in her favor in October 2024 and issued a right-to-sue letter on October 22, 2024. Paulausky filed this lawsuit on January 14, 2025, asserting six counts: (1) disability discrimination under the MHRA; (2) failure to accommodate under the MHRA; (3) disability discrimination under the ADA; (4) failure to accommodate under the ADA; (5) reprisal under the MHRA; and (6) retaliation under the ADA.
Mayo's Motion
Mayo Clinic moved for partial dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), seeking dismissal of all MHRA claims (Counts 1, 2, and 5) and dismissal of time-barred allegations under both statutes.
MHRA 'Works in This State' Requirement
The MHRA defines 'employee' as an individual who 'resides or works in this state.' Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 15. It is undisputed that Paulausky never resided in Minnesota. The dispositive question was whether she 'works in' Minnesota within the meaning of the statute. The court applied the Eighth Circuit's recent ruling in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., 134 F.4th 528 (8th Cir. 2025), which held that 'works in' Minnesota requires physical presence in the state — performing 'the labor, task, or duty of employment within the limits, bounds, or area of the state.' Non-physical-presence contacts (emails, phone calls, video conferences, accessing computer systems located in Minnesota) are insufficient. The court distinguished cases cited by Paulausky — Wilson v. CFMOTO Powersports, Inc. and Lapushner v. Admedus Ltd. — because those plaintiffs had physically traveled to Minnesota for work and suffered discrimination there, while Paulausky had never been to Minnesota for any purpose, and her alleged injuries occurred at her out-of-state home. Paulausky's argument that accessing Mayo's Minnesota-based electronic medical records system makes her work occur 'in' Minnesota was rejected. The court also noted the general presumption against extraterritorial application of state statutes. Accordingly, the MHRA claims were dismissed for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1).
Time-Bar Analysis — MHRA
The MHRA requires a plaintiff to file an administrative charge or civil action within 365 days of a discriminatory act. Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subds. 3–4. Each denial of accommodation is a discrete act that starts its own limitations clock; there is no continuing violation exception under the MHRA. Because Paulausky filed her MDHR/EEOC charge on December 15, 2022, the 365-day lookback period extends only to December 15, 2021. Allegations in paragraphs 13–15 of the complaint (September and October 2021 events) are therefore time-barred and dismissed with prejudice. MHRA claims based on allegations after December 15, 2021 are dismissed without prejudice (though the jurisdictional ruling separately bars all MHRA claims regardless).
Time-Bar Analysis — ADA
Under the ADA, a discrimination charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 12117; Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 403 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2005). Filing occurred December 15, 2022, making the 300-day window begin on February 18, 2022. Events before that date are untimely. The court rejected Paulausky's continuing violation argument, relying on Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009) — a case Paulausky herself cited — which explains that a denial of a reasonable accommodation is a discrete discriminatory act (like a termination or failure to promote), not an ongoing course of conduct. The continuing violation doctrine applies to hostile work environment claims, not discrete denials. Therefore, ADA claims based on September and October 2021 events (Complaint ¶¶ 13–15) are untimely and dismissed with prejudice.
Order:
- Mayo Clinic's Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED.
- Counts 1, 2, and 5 (all MHRA claims) are DISMISSED — pre-December 15, 2021 allegations with prejudice; post-December 15, 2021 allegations without prejudice.
- ADA claims based on allegations prior to February 18, 2022 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
- Paragraphs 13–15, 34–43, and 53–58 are stricken from the complaint.
- Paulausky must file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order.
The remaining ADA claims (Counts 3, 4, and 6) based on conduct on or after February 18, 2022 survive and the case continues on those claims.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.