EEOC Reaches Significant Settlement in Prayer Accommodation Case

/in ,

On August 6, 2017, the EEOC reached a significant settlement in a case against Electrolux. The case involved claims by a group of Muslim employees who were denied religious accommodations.

The employees had asked the company to allow them to break their fast shortly after sunset in accordance with the observation of Ramadan, the Islamic holiday that involves fasting from dawn to sunset every day for approximately one month annually. Electrolux changed its break time policies and interfered with the employees’ religious practices.

The claims were brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommodations to employees if it does not cause any undue hardship to the employer. Minnesota law provides similar protections as well.

The settlement is a significant victory for all parties. It allows the Muslim employees to practice their sincere religious beliefs, while not causing an undue burden on the employer. Terms of the settlement include:

  • Electrolux will adjust break time schedule during the entire month of Ramadan to allow Muslim employees to pray and break their Ramadan fasts shortly after sunset in a safe environment, away from the production area.
  • Electrolux will also provide training to its employees at the St. Cloud facility on the requirements related to religious accommodation under federal law.
  • The company also agreed to report to the EEOC all future requests it receives for religious accommodations and how the requests were addressed by the company.

Ramadan began on August 9, shortly after the parties’ settlement in this case.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel handles all types of employment law claims, including religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. Our firm has represented Muslim employees on a group basis for failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations.

If you have questions about your right to religious accommodations, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

With Rise of Hate Groups, Laws Prohibiting Harassment at Work are Important Tools

/in

With the apparent increase of hate speech and hate groups on the rise in the United States, it is important for employees to keep in mind their rights to be free from hostility and harassment at work under federal and state law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees based on disability, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects people based on age. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) provides similar protections for employees in Minnesota, and generally applies to any employer, regardless of size.

These laws also prohibit harassment, or a “hostile work environment,” for these same protected classes. For example, both Title VII and the MHRA prohibit an employer from maintaining a hostile work environment on the basis of race or religion. Put another way, the law protects employees from being harassed because of their race or religion (or any other protected status).

In order to qualify as a “hostile work environment” under the law, an employee must experience conduct, including acts or words, that are either severe or pervasive, and based on a protected class (such as race or religion). The harassment must be unwanted, and it must be objectively offensive to a reasonable person. Examples of racial harassment (also called hostile work environment) include hanging a noose in a workspace, using racial slurs or epithets, or repeatedly using racial or similar stereotypes about coworkers.

According to a recent study, many employees find their workplace hostile—as many as one in five employees believes they have experienced hostility at work. At the same time, racial and religious hate groups still continue to exist throughout the United States, including in Minnesota. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate groups are on the rise.

One way to combat hateful speech and conduct is to know and enforce your rights under federal and state employment laws. If you believe that you have been targeted because of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability, or experience harassment or hostility at work, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.

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.