status with regard to public assistance, familial status, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age to ... discharge an employee.’’ We note "familial status” was added effective May 12, 2014. 5 . "When interpreting cases under the MHRA, Minnesota courts give weight to federal court interpretations of Title VII claims because of the substantial similarities between the statutes.” Hunter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 697 F.3d 697, 702 (8th Cir.2012) (citing Wayne v. MasterShield, Inc., 597 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Minn.Ct.App.1999)). 6 .At the prima facie stage, we apply a "low-threshold standard.” Wimbley v. Cashion, 588 F.3d 959, 962 (8th Cir.2009); see also Sprenger v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, 253 F.3d 1106, 1111 (8th Cir.20 (10th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Jefferies v. Harris Cnty. Comm'ty Action
holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii recognizing title vii claim by subclass of african american women