Phillip Kitzer Presents at Minnesota CLE on Common Employer Mistakes Under Leave Laws

/in , ,

On September 15, 2026, Phillip Kitzer joined Benjamin Kwan of Haller Kwan LLP and Darren Sharp of Schaefer Halleen, LLC to present at Minnesota CLE’s “Navigating Minnesota and Federal Leave Laws” seminar. The full-day seminar brought together Minnesota employment attorneys to address the growing number of state and federal laws governing employee leave and time off, including Minnesota’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave law, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time law.

Phillip, Ben, and Darren presented “Perspective from Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: Mistakes Employers Make When Employees Request Leave.” The presentation focused on the intersection of the FMLA, Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML), Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Through practical scenarios, the panel discussed how a single absence or return-to-work situation can implicate several different employee protections.

Phillip specifically addressed common problems involving “100% healed” return-to-work policies, termination immediately after FMLA leave expires without considering a short extension, and employers making assumptions about undue hardship or workplace safety without conducting the individualized assessment required by disability law.

Employees may have rights under multiple state and federal laws when requesting medical leave or returning to work after leave. If you have concerns about medical leave, a request for accommodation, or how your employer has handled your return to work, contact Kitzer Rochel to discuss your situation.

Frances Baillon and Phillip Kitzer Present at Minnesota CLE Seminar on Workplace Sexual Harassment

/in ,

Frances Baillon and Phillip Kitzer recently presented at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education’s seminar, Preventing and Addressing Workplace Sexual Harassment. The August 11 program brought together employment law practitioners and other professionals to discuss practical and legal issues surrounding the prevention, investigation, and litigation of workplace sexual harassment claims.

Frances and Phillip presented a session titled The Dynamics of Difference – Addressing Sexual Harassment of Workers with Disabilities. Their presentation examined the unique issues that can arise when sexual harassment intersects with disability, including the ways workplace dependency, isolation, accommodations, and power imbalances can increase vulnerability to harassment.

The presentation also addressed harassment involving employees with physical, mental health, and cognitive disabilities. Frances and Phillip discussed how disability can affect the context in which courts and practitioners evaluate issues such as unwelcome conduct, consent, credibility, and workplace power dynamics. They emphasized that while disability does not change the legal standard governing sexual harassment, it can significantly affect the factual circumstances in which harassment occurs and is experienced, reported, and evaluated.

Frances and Phillip also discussed employers’ obligations when sexually harassing conduct is committed by an individual with a disability, including the importance of prompt and appropriate corrective measures once an employer becomes aware of the conduct. The presentation concluded with practical considerations for employers and practitioners, including accessible reporting procedures, training on appropriate boundaries and consent, and proactive assessment of workplace structures that may create heightened risks.

The presentation provided an opportunity to examine an important and sometimes overlooked intersection of employment law: how disability can shape the circumstances in which workplace harassment occurs and how employers and practitioners respond.

Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel Present at Midwest Employment Law Institute

/in , ,

Kitzer Rochel PLLP is proud to announce that Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel recently served as presenters at the Midwest Employment Law Institute, one of the premier employment law conferences in the country. The conference brings together leading employment attorneys, judges, HR professionals, and in-house counsel to discuss emerging workplace issues, litigation trends, and developments shaping employment law practice.

Phillip Kitzer participated in two sessions during the Institute. First, Phillip joined an open forum discussing the growing use of artificial intelligence in the workplace and the legal challenges that accompany AI-driven employment decisions. The discussion explored how employers are increasingly utilizing AI tools in hiring, evaluations, and workplace decision-making, as well as the resulting litigation and compliance concerns. The panel also addressed practical considerations surrounding discovery, documentation, and the risks posed by automated decision-making systems in employment disputes.

Phillip also served on a panel analyzing the rise of “nuclear” verdicts and their impact on employment litigation strategy. The session examined trends in high-value jury verdicts, evolving approaches to damages arguments, jury psychology, and how both plaintiff-side and defense attorneys are adapting their litigation strategies in response to increasingly significant verdict awards.

Brian Rochel presented on a panel focused on the use of expert witnesses in employment litigation. The session addressed strategic considerations surrounding expert selection, admissibility challenges, and the effective use of experts in complex workplace disputes. The panel also explored how experts can shape case themes, strengthen damages presentations, and assist juries in understanding complicated factual and legal issues.

The firm is honored to contribute to important conversations affecting the future of workplace law and employment litigation. Phillip and Brian’s participation at the Institute reflects Kitzer Rochel’s continued commitment to thought leadership, advocacy, and staying at the forefront of evolving legal issues impacting employees and employers alike.

Retaliation: The Most Common Employment Claim

/in ,

Retaliation is one of the most common employment claims brought in Minnesota. In simple terms, retaliation occurs when an employer takes negative action against an employee because the employee exercised a legal right.

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a person who opposes discrimination, files a charge, or participates in an investigation or proceeding under the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.15.

Protected activity can include reporting discrimination or harassment, participating in a workplace investigation, requesting a disability accommodation, or filing a charge with a government agency. Federal law similarly prohibits retaliation for engaging in protected equal employment opportunity activity.

Minnesota law also protects employees from retaliation in other contexts. For example, the Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects employees who report suspected violations of law or participate in investigations. See Minn. Stat. § 181.932. Retaliation is not limited to termination. It can include demotion, discipline, reduced hours, negative evaluations, threats, or other actions that would discourage a reasonable employee from raising concerns. One important point: employees may still be protected even if the underlying complaint is not ultimately proven. The law generally protects workers who raise concerns in good faith.

If you have questions about retaliation, please contact us today.

Are Non-Compete Agreements Still Enforceable in Minnesota?

/in ,

Minnesota significantly changed its non-compete law in 2023. Under the statute, most non-compete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2023 are void and unenforceable. The law defines a “covenant not to compete” as an agreement that restricts an employee, after leaving employment, from working for another employer, working in a geographic area, or working in a similar role. See Minn. Stat. § 181.988.

The new law was designed to make it easier for employees to change jobs without fear of legal threats from former employers. But the statute does not prohibit every type of post-employment restriction. Employers may still require agreements protecting confidential information, trade secrets, or client relationships, such as non-solicitation provisions.

The law also prevents employers from requiring Minnesota employees to litigate employment disputes outside Minnesota or under another state’s law as a condition of employment. This protection applies to employees who primarily live and work in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 3.

Even with the new statute, questions about enforceability still arise. The answer may depend on when the agreement was signed, how it is written, and whether it is truly a non-compete or another type of restriction. If you have questions about a noncompete agreement, contact us today.

Brian Rochel Moderates MN-NELA Conversation with Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko

/in

Brian Rochel led a conversation with Judge Douglas Micko of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, moderated by Brian Rochel of Kitzer Rochel, PLLP. The CLE event was hosted by Minnesota NELA and featured a candid and practical discussion with perspectives from the bench.

Judge Micko reflected on his professional path from employment lawyer and active NELA member to federal magistrate judge. Drawing on his experience presiding over employment cases in the District of Minnesota, he offered practical insight into nearly every aspect of federal practice for employment lawyers—from motion practice and discovery disputes to settlement conferences and effective advocacy before the court.

The conversation provided useful perspective from both sides of the bench and practical guidance on credibility, efficiency, and persuasive advocacy in federal employment litigation.

Minnesota NELA thanked Judge Micko and Brian Rochel for an engaging and informative discussion.

Can Your Employer Require You to Return to the Office?

/in , ,

Many employers have begun requiring employees who worked remotely during the pandemic to return to the office. In general, employers have broad authority to decide where work is performed and may adopt return-to-office policies.

However, the analysis can change when an employee has a medical condition or disability that affects their ability to work on site. Both federal law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act require employers to consider reasonable accommodations in certain circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.08.

In some situations, remote work may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explains that working from home can be appropriate where an employee’s disability limits their ability to work in the workplace and the job’s essential functions can be performed remotely. Employers are generally expected to engage in an interactive process to evaluate accommodation requests rather than simply deny them.

Whether remote work is reasonable often depends on the employee’s job duties and the employer’s operations. Questions such as whether the employee previously worked remotely, whether in-person tasks are truly required, and whether remote work would create undue hardship for the employer may all be relevant.

For employees facing a return-to-office mandate, the key issue is often not whether the employer can adopt the policy, but how the employer responds when an employee requests an accommodation under disability law. If you have questions about returning to work, contact our firm today.

Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave: What Employees Should Know After the First Month

/in , ,

Minnesota’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law is now in effect, and the first month has given employees their first real look at how the program works in practice.

For many workers, this is the first time they have access to state-run paid leave benefits for serious health conditions, bonding with a new child, caring for a family member, or certain military-related events. While the program is new, the basic rights are clear — and important.

What the Law Provides

Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program allows eligible employees to receive partial wage replacement when they need time off for:

  • Their own serious health condition
  • Bonding with a new child
  • Caring for a family member with a serious health condition
  • Certain military-related needs
  • Safety leave in cases involving domestic violence or stalking

The benefit is funded through payroll contributions and administered by the state. Employees apply through the state program — not directly through their employer — and benefits are paid by the state.

How the First Month Has Gone

As expected with any new statewide program, there have been questions and some early confusion. The state reports that more than 35,000 employees have applied for the benefits, which is a very strong start.

Common questions include:

  • Coordination with FMLA or employer-provided leave
  • Understanding how wage replacement amounts are calculated
  • Timing of applications and approvals
  • Employer misunderstandings about notice requirements

That said, the system is operational, and many employees are successfully receiving benefits. Most early issues involve paperwork, timing, or clarification — not denial of the underlying right to take leave.

What Employees Should Keep in Mind

If you are considering taking paid leave, there are several key points to remember:

  1. Provide notice when possible. If the need for leave is foreseeable, give your employer advance notice.
  2. Document your condition or qualifying event. The state will require certification.
  3. Understand job protection. In most cases, your job (or an equivalent position) must be restored when you return from leave.
  4. Retaliation is prohibited. Employers cannot discipline or terminate you for using protected leave.
  5. Know whether your employer uses a private plan or the state run plan. Your employer chooses whether to opt into the state plan or to a private plan managed by a third party company. It is important to know where you should apply. Ask your employer if you are not sure.

Importantly, Paid Family and Medical Leave is separate from federal FMLA — but in many situations the leaves will run at the same time. The interaction between the two laws can affect how long you are protected and how benefits are calculated.

The Bottom Line

After the first month, Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program appears to be functioning as intended, though employees should expect some administrative growing pains. The law provides meaningful financial support during major life and medical events — but only if workers understand their rights and follow the application process carefully.

But regardless of any hiccups in the process, you are still entitled to job protections and rules against retaliation that are specified in the law.

If you have questions about whether your situation qualifies, or if you believe your employer is interfering with your leave rights, contact us today.

Brian Rochel Presents CLE on Rethinking Title VII Litigation

/in ,

On February 6, 2026, Kitzer Rochel partner Brian Rochel presented at the North Carolina Advocates for Justice (NCAJ) 2026 Employment Law CLE, a full-day program bringing together plaintiff-side employment attorneys to discuss evolving doctrine and practical litigation strategy.

As part of the broader agenda, Brian co-presented with Sam Kramer on “Reimagining Title VII: Beyond McDonnell Douglas.” The session focused on how employment lawyers can more effectively litigate Title VII discrimination claims without treating the traditional burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green as a rigid formula.

While McDonnell Douglas remains an important evidentiary tool, the presentation emphasized that Title VII ultimately asks a straightforward question: whether an adverse employment action was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic. Courts increasingly evaluate that question based on the totality of the evidence, particularly at the summary judgment stage under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or analogous state rules.

Brian discussed practical strategies for positioning cases for summary judgment and trial, including highlighting direct evidence, leveraging comparator and statistical proof where appropriate, and exposing shifting or inconsistent employer explanations. The session encouraged advocates to present discrimination cases as cohesive, evidence-driven narratives rather than mechanical burden-shifting exercises.

The CLE program also included panels on whistleblower protections, wage theft litigation, mediation strategy, and emerging practice tools, reflecting the continued development of plaintiff-side employment advocacy nationwide.

Brian Rochel Moderates Panel on Using Expert Witnesses

/in , ,

Kitzer Rochel attorney Brian Rochel recently moderated a CLE panel focused on the strategic use of expert witnesses in employment and civil rights litigation—from pre-litigation through trial. The panel offered a practical, end-to-end discussion grounded in real-world litigation and trial experience. The CLE was sponsored by the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (MN-NELA).

The discussion covered early-case considerations, including when and why to consult or retain experts before litigation to shape case theory, damages analysis, and settlement strategy. Panelists also addressed expert practice during discovery, including reports, disclosures, and depositions, as well as effective trial presentation. Topics included introducing experts on the stand, preparing for direct and cross-examination, positioning experts as teachers rather than advocates, using visuals and demonstratives, and critically evaluating defense expert testimony.

Brian moderated a panel featuring an accomplished group of trial lawyers:

  • Jeff Storms of Storms Dworak LLC, a leading civil rights and plaintiff’s attorney.

  • Mary Olszewska, co-founder of Fellowship Law Group and an experienced employment and civil rights litigator.

  • J. Ashwin Madia of Madia Law LLC, a nationally recognized trial lawyer and Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

The panel reinforced a key takeaway for employment litigators: expert witnesses are not just trial tools. When used strategically and early, they can meaningfully shape case value and litigation outcomes.