1. Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act's (MHRA) protection of transgender individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 44 (2018), a policy that expressly prohibits transgender women from competing in the women's division of a powerlifting competition is facially discriminatory and constitutes direct evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation under the MHRA's prohibition against business discrimination and discrimination by places of public accommodation, found at Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.11, 363A.17 (2018). 2. There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether seeking to ensure competitive fairness in an athletic competition satisfies the legitimate business purpose defense for sexual orientation and sex discrimination in business under Minn. Stat. § 363A.17 (2018) of the MHRA that forecloses partial summary judgment for the plaintiff as to liability on this claim. 3. In the absence of any alleged statutory exemption or defense, the district court properly granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the claim of sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations. 4. Our holding in Goins v. West Group, 635 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2001), is limited to claims of sexual orientation discrimination under the MHRA related to employment. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi