Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Broad Protection for Whistleblowers

/in , ,

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees, holding that the Minnesota legislature intended to overrule caselaw that limited Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act (MWA) when it amended the law in 2013. The case, Freidlander v. Edwards Life Sciences, centered around the definition of “good faith.” The MWA protects employees from retaliation if they report illegal conduct in “good faith.” Prior to 2013, the statute provided no definition for the term “good faith.” Beginning in 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court limited that definition in several cases. The effect of the court’s narrow definition was to limit protections for employees, leaving no legal recourse for many employees were fired for reporting unlawful conduct. These decisions undermined the purpose of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act by making it it much more difficult for employees to report unlawful activity without losing their jobs. Consequently, in 2013, the Minnesota Legislature took action, defining “good faith” as any report that is not knowingly false or in reckless disregard of the truth. By doing so, the Legislature restored the broad protections of the MWA.

Several companies, including Edwards Life Sciences, and the Chamber of Commerce, disagreed with the Legislature’s intent and argued that the judicially-created, narrow definition of “good faith” still applied, even though the legislature changed the law. In a case that affects virtually every employee in Minnesota, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, and held that the legislature intended to change the definition, stating that the employer’s reading would “render the ‘good faith’ definition section of the 2013 amendment superfluous, and run afoul of our presumption that the Legislature intends to change the law when it amends a statute.”

The decision was unanimous, with Chief Justice Gildea authoring the opinion. The decision solidifies the Legislature’s effort to ensure that employees are protected from being fired or retaliated against if they report violations of law, or suspected violations of law, to their employer or to third parties. Employees must make such reports in “good faith,” which means that they are not protected if they lie or make reports in reckless disregard of the truth.

The case was successfully argued by Adam Hansen of Apollo Law, and the plaintiff is represented by Halunen Law and Nichols Kaster. Phillip Kitzer, Douglas Micko and Brian Rochel of Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel also participated on behalf of Minnesota NELA, who appeared as amicus curiae arguing in favor of the broader interpretation.

If you would like to learn more, or if you believe you have experienced retaliation at work, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

Minnesota Supreme Court extends statute of limitations for some claims under Minnesota Human Rights Act

/in ,

On April 12, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 195 (Apr. 12, 2017), that may extend the statute of limitations for some employment claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Scott Peterson was a Minneapolis Police Officer for several years. In 2011, he was transferred to a new police unit, and he complained that the transfer was because of age discrimination. Rather than file a charge of discrimination, Officer Peterson filed a complaint through the City’s internal investigative wing. Over a year later, the City concluded that Officer Peterson had not been discriminated against.

Officer Peterson then sued the City. The City responded by arguing that it was too late to sue—there is a one-year statute of limitations for claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Peterson was more than a year after his transfer. But, as the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized, that one-year statute of limitations is “tolled” or suspended during the time that the parties are engaged in their own dispute resolution process. So for Officer Peterson, the time that the City was investigating his discrimination claim did not count against his statute of limitations. That meant that even though Officer Peterson sued more  than a year after his transfer, his claim was still timely.

Before seeking a lawyer, many employees will attempt to work out their employment issues directly with their employers. With the Peterson case, it now seems this time may not count toward the statute of limitations for claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. However, because many employment claims have very short statutes of limitations, you should contact a lawyer as soon as possible if you have an employment concern or a workplace dispute.

Gretchen Carlson Leads Fight against Sexual Harassment and Forced Arbitration at Work

/in

carlson

Gretchen Carlson, Minnesota native and former Fox News star, is featured in an article by Time Magazine on her fight against sexual harassment at work. Carlson was sexually harassed by her boss, Roger Ailes, then Chairman of Fox News. Since taking her legal claims public, she has been a role model for victims of sexual harassment across the U.S. Carlson is quoted in the article, saying “I think this is happening every single day to women in all walks of life and in all different types of corporations. I’ve heard from so many women, from Wall Street to a tiny little town in Alabama. It’s everywhere.”

Carlson’s story helps shed light on the pervasive problem of sexual harassment in employment settings around the country. Sex discrimination, and sexual harassment, remain very real problems in Minnesota and in nearly every city and state in America.

Carlson is also speaking out against forced arbitration in employment agreements and employee handbooks. She has agreed to testify to congress about the problems of forced arbitration. Says Carlson, “It is a huge problem. Because it’s secret. And it plays into why we think that we’ve come so far in society and we probably really haven’t—because we don’t hear about it.”

Minnesota Senator Al Franken is a co-sponsor of a proposed law to ban forced arbitration, a bill that Carlson supports (Senator Patrick Leahy is also co-sponsor). Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel has been at the forefront of the fight against forced arbitration. Founding partner Vildan Teske has testified to the U.S. Senate against forced arbitration, has worked with Senator Franken on this important issue, and has been quoted in the media on forced arbitration for consumers.

If you have questions about sexual harassment, have been harassed at work, or would like to learn more about the fight against forced arbitration, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

Brian Rochel Presents at NELA National Convention in Los Angeles, CA

/in ,

Brian Rochel presented at the National Employment Lawyer Association’s (NELA) annual convention, held from June 22-25 in Los Angeles, CA. Brian presented as part of a panel entitled, “What I Wish I Knew When I was Starting Out as a Plaintiffs’ Employment Lawyer.” The presentation covered a wide breadth of topics, and was aimed at giving newer attorneys practical advice on how to develop their practices.

Mr. Rochel participated along with co-panelists Elissa J. Hobfoll and Whitney Judkins, and moderator Nina Pirrotti. For more information about NELA and/or the 2016 national convention, click here.

 

Brian Rochel and Phillip Kitzer Present to Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust on ADA, Workers’ Compensation Retaliation, and FMLA Laws

/in

On June 15, 2016, Brian Rochel and Phillip Kitzer presented at the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust’s (MCIT) seminar, Advanced Employment Issues for Public Entities.  The presentation, titled The Intersection of Disability, FMLA and Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Laws, addressed the complications for employers when employees request accommodations related to a disability or work-related injury, or when employees request time off related to a disability, workers’ compensation injury, or FMLA leave.

The MCIT is an entity composed of Minnesota counties and public entities that provides risk management and loss services to its members.  The Advanced Employment Issues for Public Entities seminar was a full day of training for human resources professionals that examined emerging workplace concerns.  Mr. Rochel and Mr. Kitzer primarily represent employees in workplace disputes, but presented to human resources employees multiple examples of mistakes they commonly see made by employers that lead to wrongful termination lawsuits.

Brian Rochel recognized again as North Star Lawyer for pro bono service

/in ,

Brian Rochel has been designated as a North Star Lawyer for 2015, the third consecutive year Mr. Rochel has received the designation.

The North Star Lawyer designation is awarded to Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) members who provided 50 or more hours of pro bono service in 2015.  The  entire list of recipients will soon be available here.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel Partners Present at 8th Circuit Employment Law Conference

/in ,

 On April 14, 2016, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel partners Brian Rochel, and Phillip Kitzer presented continuing legal education programming at the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) – Eighth Circuit Affiliate conference.

NELA’s Eighth Circuit conference is held every two years, and draws employment lawyers from throughout the Upper Midwest. This years’ conference was held in Kansas City, Missouri. Mr. Rochel was invited to speak on a panel that addressed employment law issues unique to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender communities. Mr. Kitzer spoke on the issue of dealing with abusive and harassing litigation tactics.

Excessive Use of Overly Broad Non-Compete Agreements being Called into Question

/in

Non-compete agreements, a certain type of restrictive covenant, have been somewhat common between employers and employees for decades. But the use of non-competes, particularly very broad and restrictive ones, has spread expansively in recent years.

Initially designed to be a fair tool for employers to maintain certain key trade secrets and essential client bases, non-competes were originally contracts that employees voluntarily entered into and were paid a fair amount in exchange for doing so. Over the years, however, non-competes have become virtually mandatory and restrict employees from being able to leave their employer in exchange for nothing—typically only in exchange for “continued employment,” which is essentially value-less when employment is “at will.”

Moreover, while non-competes used to be limited to certain fields—such as highly technical scientific or intellectual property fields, or valuable high-level sales roles—they are now becoming common place in almost every conceivable area of work, from delivery drivers to journalists to hair stylists.

The proliferation of non-compete agreements, and their use as a tool to pressure employees into staying for worse terms and conditions of employment are finally starting to be called into question. As a recent article notes, the use of non-competes is becoming “outrageous,” and is catching the attention of attorneys general, the media, and hopefully courts as well.

Non-competes have historically been enforced quite strictly and rigidly, especially in Minnesota. If you are asked to sign a non-compete, or if you have already signed one and have questions about it, please contact us today because there are many nuances and laws that may apply, and the field may be changing significantly in the near future.

Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies that Whistleblowers Have 6 Years to File Claim

/in

What is the statute of limitations for a whistleblower claim in Minnesota?  That was the question posed to the Minnesota Supreme Court in  Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools.  In a unanimous decision, the Court has ruled that whistleblowers have six years to bring a lawsuit against an employer under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”).  

In Ford, the employee reported unethical and illegal activity in her department and, shortly thereafter, on April 22, 2008, was notified that her position would be eliminated at the end of the school year.  Her last day of work was June 30, 2008, and she began her lawsuit on June 29, 2010.  The Minneapolis Public Schools sought to dismiss her case by arguing that a two year statute of limitations applies to the MWA and the clock began to tick the moment she learned of her termination.  The Supreme Court agreed that the statute of limitations began to run in April, the moment she learned of her termination, but that a six-year statute of limitations applies to the MWA.  The decision can be found here.

Every law that protects employees has its own statute of limitation, which can range from ten days to six years. Employees must take action within the appropriate statute of limitations or they likely will forfeit any opportunity to do so in the future.

If you feel you have been treated unfairly at work, do not risk a statute of limitations deadline and contact the attorneys at Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochele Micko for a consultation right away.

Wage Theft Significant Problem, Minneapolis City Council to Address

/in

Wage theft is the illegal practice of employers not paying workers for their labor, or their work. Wage theft includes failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, failing to pay workers the wage that was promised, forcing workers to work ‘off the clock,’ and many other illegal practices.

Wage theft is a major problem in the United States, and in Minnesota in particular. In fact, the Minneapolis City Council has recently announced its intent to address the widespread problem of wage theft, according to media coverage.

It is encouraging to see the Minneapolis City Council’s interest in addressing this widespread and growing problem. But it is important for workers to know that federal and state laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act both provide legal recourse for some of the problems of wage theft. In fact, Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel, in collaboration with Nichols Kaster, recently helped expand the potential theories of recovery available to workers who are not paid at the rate that they were promised, in Shoots v. iQor Holdings, Inc.

One of the problems allowing for wage theft are workers not being fully aware of all of their rights under existing laws, as well as new laws that may be passed, such as Minneapolis’s goal of city council action. If you have questions about wage theft, or are concerned that you and/or your coworkers are not being paid for work, or are not being paid fairly, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.