Three of four claims revived. Why the fourth one matters.

Three of four claims revived. Why the fourth one failed.

Most law firm writing about appellate decisions describes only the parts that went well. We're going to do this one differently, because the claim that failed in Brokken v. Hennepin County is genuinely instructive, and because if you are evaluating whether to bring a case, you deserve to know which theories don't work before you spend a year finding out.

The case

Petra Brokken worked for Hennepin County. When the County adopted a COVID-19 vaccination and testing policy, she was initially granted a religious exemption.

Then the County revised the policy. Under the new version she faced termination if she did not comply, and termination would have cost her more than the job. She had accrued over 1,285 hours of banked vacation, sick, and comp time, and stood to lose it.

She retired instead, and sued, on the ground that the revised policy conflicted with her religious beliefs. Those beliefs included treating her body as a temple, an objection to being forced to accept biological materials, and objections tied to the use of fetal cell lines and bovine serum in the vaccines and tests.

The district court dismissed all four of her theories:

• She had not pleaded an adverse employment action, because she retired

voluntarily.

• She had not plausibly pleaded a conflict between her religion and the policy.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act contains no failure-to-accommodate cause of

action.

• Minn. Stat. § 12.39, Minnesota's refusal-of-medical-treatment statute ,

creates no private right of action.

What the Eighth Circuit did

Brokken v. Hennepin County, 140 F.4th 445 (8th Cir. 2025). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.

Reversed: the Title VII claim. The threat Brokken faced was not a hypothetical inconvenience. Losing 1,285-plus hours of banked time, at the price of complying with a policy that conflicted with her faith, was enough at the pleading stage to constitute an adverse employment action. You do not have to wait to be fired to have been harmed. And her stated beliefs connected adequately to the County's policy.

Reversed: the MHRA claim. Following Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic Ambulance, 102 F.4th 894 (8th Cir. 2024), the court confirmed that the Minnesota Human Rights Act does reach failure-to-accommodate claims.

Affirmed: the § 12.39 claim. This one stayed dismissed, and correctly so.

Why the fourth claim failed

Minn. Stat. § 12.39 addresses refusal of medical treatment during a declared emergency. On its face it looks like it was written for exactly this situation, and a lot of people read it that way in 2021.

But the statute carries only a criminal penalty, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or 90 days. It does not create a private civil right of action. That means an individual cannot sue their employer under it for damages. A statute can prohibit conduct without giving you a personal cause of action to enforce it, and § 12.39 is that kind of statute.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of that claim. We think it got that right.

Why we're telling you about the claim we lost

Three reasons.

First, because accuracy is the product. If we describe Brokken as a clean sweep, and you later read the opinion, you learn something about how carefully we describe things generally. We would rather you learn the opposite.

Second, because the distinction is practically useful. If you are talking to a lawyer about a mandate case and the plan leans on § 12.39 as a source of damages, that is a signal worth noticing. In the Eighth Circuit, that theory is foreclosed.

Third, because it illustrates what these appeals actually are. The core employment claims, Title VII and MHRA, were revived and returned to the district court. An ancillary state-law theory was properly dismissed. That is a real and useful result, and it is not the same thing as winning the case. Petra Brokken's case went back to the district court to be litigated. That is what a successful appeal at this stage produces.

The part that matters most for public employees

Brokken involved a government employer, which raises questions that don't arise against a private hospital system. But the holding that travels furthest is the constructive-discharge point.

A great many people did not wait to be fired. They saw the policy, understood what was coming, and resigned or retired, often to protect a pension, banked time, or a professional license. Many were later told they had no claim because they left voluntarily.

Brokken says that at the pleading stage, leaving under a threat of that magnitude can be an adverse employment action. If you resigned or retired rather than comply, you were not necessarily giving up your claim.

Whether you still have one is a question of timing, and the deadlines are short.

If this describes your situation

Title VII charges generally must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the adverse action in Minnesota. Minnesota Human Rights Act claims generally must be brought within one year, and Minnesota courts enforce that limit strictly.

If your case is on appeal or you are within the window to appeal a dismissal, that is the most time-sensitive situation and the one where these decisions do the most work.

We'll tell you on the first call, at no charge, whether we think you still have a case, including if the answer is no.

MKLaw represented the plaintiff in Brokken v. Hennepin County.

---

---