- 16 -
Petitioner asserts that the Minnesota Human Rights Act is a broad
statute that provides for tort or tort type remedies, including
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and damages for mental
anguish and suffering.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that amounts received by a
taxpayer in settlement of an age discrimination claim under the
ADEA are not excludable from gross income under section 104(a)(2)
because the ADEA provides no compensation “for any of the other
traditional harms associated with personal injury”. Commissioner
v. Schleier, 515 U.S. at 335; see also United States v. Burke,
504 U.S. 229 (1992) (backpay awards in settlement of claims
brought under title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-
352, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000e through
2000e-17 (1994), are not damages received on account of personal
injuries within meaning of section 104(a)(2) and must be included
in income because Act does not provide remedies for personal
injuries). But cf. Bent v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 249 (gross
income does not include damages received under 42 U.S.C. sec.
1983 claim based on violation of First Amendment rights to free
speech). In Schleier, the Supreme Court concluded that monetary
remedies under the ADEA are either of an “economic character” or
liquidated damages, which serve no compensatory function.
7(...continued)
Ann. sec. 363.01, subd. 17 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000). Okabena did
not employ more than 15 at any time relevant to this proceeding.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011