We’re proud to share a major victory on behalf of our client, Daniel Engebretson, in a landmark disability discrimination case against Northern Tool and Equipment Company, Inc. After years of litigation, a jury trial win and a strong appellate decision have marked this outcome as a powerful statement on workplace rights and accountability.
The Case at a Glance
Daniel Engebretson, a seasoned director of real estate, alleged that Northern Tool terminated his employment in 2020 under circumstances that violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint and trial testimony, Mr. Engebretson had disclosed serious health conditions and requested accommodations—including intermittent FMLA leave and remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged that following these disclosures, his supervisor began treating him differently: succession planning discussions ceased, responsibilities were reassigned, and his performance review was downgraded with explicit reference to his health.
Mr. Engebretson further alleged that the company’s stated reasons for his termination—part of a reduction in force—were pretextual and unsupported by documentation. The jury agreed. After a seven-day trial in April 2024, they found that Northern Tool had discriminated against Mr. Engebretson on the basis of disability and awarded him $375,000 in damages for lost wages.
A Resounding Win on Appeal
Northern Tool appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s evidentiary rulings, and the attorney fee award. On September 15, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected each argument and affirmed the judgment in full.
In its opinion, the court wrote:
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Engebretson, we agree with the district court that competent evidence reasonably tends to sustain the verdict… The evidence includes more than Engebretson’s ‘subjective beliefs’… [It] reasonably tends to sustain the verdict on his disability-discrimination claim, including that his disability was a motivating factor for his discharge.”
The court also upheld the district court’s award of over $1.1 million in attorney fees, plus prejudgment interest and a civil penalty—recognizing the complexity and intensity of the litigation and the degree of success obtained.
While further appellate review remains a possibility, this opinion represents a significant affirmance of the trial court’s judgment and a strong endorsement of the protections afforded under Minnesota law.
A Message to Employers and Employees
This case underscores the importance of vigilance in protecting employee rights. Employers must ensure that decisions are free from bias and well-documented. Employees should know that the law is on their side when they face discrimination.
I am honored to have stood beside Mr. Engebretson throughout this journey, along with my former colleagues at Nichols Kaster, PLLP. His courage and perseverance made this victory possible, and we are proud to have helped secure justice.
If you or someone you know is facing workplace discrimination, we’re here to help.
🛡️ Know Your Rights: The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)
The Minnesota Human Rights Act is one of the most comprehensive civil rights laws in the country. It prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, education, public services, and more—based on protected characteristics such as:
- Disability
- Race
- Sex
- Age
- Religion
- National origin
- Sexual orientation
- Marital status
- Familial status
- Gender identity
In the Workplace
Under the MHRA, employers may not:
- Refuse to hire, promote, or retain an employee because of a disability
- Terminate or demote an employee based on health-related bias
- Retaliate against an employee for requesting reasonable accommodations
- Deny leave or flexible work arrangements when medically necessary
Employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. These accommodations can include modified schedules, remote work, or medical leave.
Enforcement and Remedies
Victims of discrimination under the MHRA may pursue legal action and seek remedies such as:
- Back pay and front pay
- Emotional distress damages
- Attorney fees and costs
- Treble damages
- Punitive damages
- Civil penalties
- Injunctive relief
The Engebretson case is a powerful example of how the MHRA protects employees and holds employers accountable when those rights are violated.