meeting by telling her supervisor that she was involved in an investigation and could not get away. It is unclear whether Costil-la’s supervisors knew that Sloan had assured Costilla that she would be protected from Acosta’s harassment and that Costilla would not be required to be present with Acosta in the future. In March 1995, Acosta was in Minnesota and met with Costilla. He insisted that Cos-tilla give him her home telephone number and got angry when she refused. In April 1995, Acosta called Costilla, ive. Third, the MHRA and cases interpreting the MHRA are consistent with the EEOC guidelines and the non-employee sexual harassment cases. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination under the MHRA. Minn.Stat. § 363.01, subd. 14 (1996). The MHRA holds an employe 21-23 (Minn. 1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, an employer has a broad duty
holding that coas should be construed liberally holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that under edenfield the act should be liberally construed holding samesex sexual harassment actionable mhra should be liberally construed holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed