Brian Rochel Co-Authors Article Discussing Major Change to Employment Discrimination Law in Bench & Bar of Minnesota

/in , ,

We are pleased to share that Brian Rochel has co-authored an article featured in the December 2024 edition of Bench & Bar of Minnesota. The article explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s major decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024). There, the Supreme Court lowered the threshold for proving discrimination under Title VII, eliminating the requirement for plaintiffs to show a “materially significant disadvantage.” The Court ruled that plaintiffs need only demonstrate “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment, broadening the scope for discrimination claims.

Brian co-authored the article with Jenny Gassman-Pines, an experienced trial lawyer at Greene Espel in Minneapolis. Brian and Jenny discuss Muldrow’s implications on employment law claims as well as workplace Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Ali Simon, a Kitzer Rochel law clerk and current University of Minnesota law student, contributed to the article as well.

You can read the article in the latest issue of Bench & Bar of Minnesota here. If you have questions about Muldrow, employment law more generally, or are wondering if you have experienced unlawful harm at work, contact us today.

Understanding the Rights and Legal Protections for Pregnant Employees: A Guide for Minnesota Workers

/in ,

Pregnancy can be both an exciting and challenging time, especially when balancing work responsibilities with the needs of growing your family. As a pregnant employee, it’s important to know that both Minnesota and federal laws offer you a range of rights and protections in the workplace. In this blog post, we’ll outline these rights, explain how they apply, and highlight what steps you can take if you believe your rights have been violated.

Federal Protections for Pregnant Employees

At the federal level, three key laws protect pregnant employees:

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA):

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Under the PDA:

  • Equal Treatment: Employers must treat pregnancy-related conditions in the same way they treat other temporary disabilities. For example, if your employer offers light-duty assignments to employees with injuries, they must offer similar accommodations to pregnant employees.
  • Hiring and Promotions: Employers cannot refuse to hire or promote you because you are pregnant, as long as you are able to perform the essential functions of the job.
  • Job Security: You cannot be fired, demoted, or forced to take leave just because you are pregnant.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) applies to employers with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. It provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including:

  • The birth of a child and caring for the newborn
  • A serious health condition that makes you unable to perform your job functions

To be eligible for FMLA, you must have worked for your employer for at least 12 months and have clocked at least 1,250 hours of service during that period. While FMLA leave is unpaid, it ensures that your job (or an equivalent position) will be available when you return.

Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (PWFA):

The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (PWFA), which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers and those with conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. This federal law focuses specifically on workplace accommodations, similar to those provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the PWFA:

  • Reasonable Accommodations: Employers must provide accommodations for pregnant workers unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the business. Examples include modifying work schedules, providing light-duty assignments, allowing additional breaks, and offering seating options.
  • Interactive Process: Employers are required to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the most appropriate accommodations.
  • Prohibition of Retaliation: Employers cannot retaliate against employees who request accommodations or exercise their rights under the PWFA.

The PWFA provides important protections that go beyond what the PDA and FMLA offer by explicitly requiring accommodations for pregnant workers to ensure they can perform their jobs safely and effectively.

Minnesota-Specific Protections for Pregnant Employees

Minnesota goes a step further than federal law, offering additional rights to pregnant employees under state law:

Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA):

The MHRA prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and applies to employers with one or more employees. This law provides similar protections to the federal PDA, making it illegal to treat an employee or job applicant unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions.

Minnesota Pregnancy and Parenting Leave Act (MPPLA):

The MPPLA is similar to the federal FMLA, but is unique to Minnesota and has broader protections regarding pregnancy and parenting leave. This law applies to all employers, regardless of how many employees work there. So even if an employer only has one employee the MPPLA applies. And the right to leave begins immediately upon hire. Unlike the FMLA, a Minnesota employee is not required to work for an employer for 12 months in order to qualify for MPPLA leave.

Note that MPPLA leave is subject to some important limitations:

  • The leave must be taken within 12 months of the birth or adoption.
  • Employees must request the leave from their employer.
  • Employees can choose when the leave will begin.
  • Employers can adopt reasonable policies about when requests for leave must be made.

Importantly, an employer may not deduct any time used for prenatal care from the 12 weeks of protected leave.

Pregnancy Accommodations under Minnesota Law:

Starting in 2023, Minnesota law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees, even if they do not request them. Some examples of accommodations include:

  • More frequent restroom breaks
  • Food and water breaks
  • Seating arrangements
  • Limits on lifting, moving, or similar physical restrictions

These accommodations must be granted unless the employer can demonstrate that they would cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business. Unlike under federal law, Minnesota employers cannot require a doctor’s note to provide these basic accommodations.

What to Do if You Experience Pregnancy Discrimination

If you believe that your rights as a pregnant employee or employee seeking parental leave have been violated, consider the following steps:

  1. Document Everything As Best You Can: Keep a detailed record of all discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, and the individuals involved.
  2. Speak to HR: Report your concerns to your employer’s Human Resources department. They may not be aware of the issue and might take corrective action once informed.
  3. File a Complaint: If the issue is not resolved internally, you may be able to file a formal complaint directly with your employer. Or you may be able to file a charge with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under federal law or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) under state law.
  4. Consult with an Attorney: An experienced employment law attorney can help you understand your rights, guide you through the complaint process, and represent you in legal proceedings if necessary.

Conclusion

Both federal and Minnesota laws offer pregnant employees robust protections against discrimination, ensuring that you can continue to work and provide for your family without fear of unfair treatment. Understanding these rights can help you advocate for yourself in the workplace and take action if your employer fails to meet their legal obligations.

If you believe your rights have been violated or you have questions about pregnancy discrimination, our experienced employment law team is here to help. Contact us today for a consultation and let us fight for the fair treatment you deserve.

Arbitration Agreements Deemed Invalid for Sexual Harassment Claims Filed After New Law

/in , ,

In a significant ruling, a federal appellate court clarified that sexual harassment and similar claims cannot be forced into arbitration. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that arbitration agreements cannot be enforced for claims of sexual harassment and assault filed after the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. This decision came in the case of Famuyide v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., where the court upheld a district court’s refusal to compel arbitration based on this new federal law.

The case centers on Eniola Famuyide, who filed a lawsuit against Chipotle in April 2023, alleging sexual harassment and assault by a co-worker, as well as related claims under Minnesota law. Chipotle attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement that was part of Famuyide’s employment contract. However, the court determined that the dispute arose after March 3, 2022, the effective date of the federal law, allowing Famuyide to bypass the arbitration clause.

The ruling highlights the court’s interpretation of when a “dispute” arises under the statute. The court rejected Chipotle’s argument that the dispute began when the harassment and assault occurred in 2021, or when preliminary legal correspondence was exchanged in early 2022. Instead, the court found that no formal conflict or controversy existed between Famuyide and Chipotle before the Act’s effective date, making the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

This decision underscores the protection the Ending Forced Arbitration Act provides to survivors of sexual harassment and assault, ensuring that such claims can be pursued in court, rather than being forced into private arbitration, as long as the disputes arose after the law’s enactment. The Eighth Circuit’s ruling is a clear message that arbitration clauses will not be a barrier to seeking justice in these sensitive and significant cases.

If you have questions about sexual harassment, forced arbitration, or employment law generally, contact our team of experienced trial lawyers today.

The Law Continues to Get Better for Minnesota Employees: MHRA Expanded

/in , ,

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) has been expanded in several important ways that will help employees across Minnesota. Governor Walz has signed a new bill, HF 4109, and it’s packed with great updates to the MHRA to help workers all over the state. Some highlights of the changes include:

Key Points of the New Law

  1. Intersectional Discrimination: The new law recognizes that discrimination can happen to people who belong to more than one protected group. This means if someone faces unfair treatment because they belong to multiple groups, like being both a woman and a person of color, the law will protect them.
  2. Disability Definition: The law now has a broader definition of “disability.” It includes conditions that come and go or are in remission, aligning more closely with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA).
  3. Harassment Protection: It’s now clear that harassment based on any protected characteristic (like race, gender, or disability) is against the law, not just sexual harassment.
  4. Familial Status: The definition of “familial status” has been expanded, but the details are not provided in the summary.
  5. Extended Deadlines: If the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) dismisses a claim, workers now have 90 days to file a lawsuit, instead of the previous 45 days. This matches the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) limit.
  6. Statute of Limitations: If MDHR takes too long to investigate a case, workers won’t lose their right to file a lawsuit because of it. This fixes some old case law problems.
  7. Punitive Damages: There is no longer a cap on punitive damages for claims against non-government entities. This means workers can potentially receive more money if they win their case because their employer intentionally or recklessly violated the law.
  8. Treble Damages: The law confirms that workers can get triple the amount of emotional distress damages, not just economic damages.
  9. Jury Decisions: In cases under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a jury, not a judge, will decide all damages questions.

How the Law Came to Be

This bill was created by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and is the first of its kind. The MDHR submitted an omnibus bill that was carried forward and put into law in a bipartisan effort, and signed by Governor Walz. Kitzer Rochel attorneys Frances Baillon, Phillip Kitzer, and Brian Rochel all helped in the effort to expand the MHRA along with many other members of Minnesota’s Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (MN-NELA). Thanks to the effort of many dedicated lawyers and lawmakers, we’ve achieved something amazing by working together. This new law will provide better protection and support for workers in Minnesota.

When Do the Changes Come Into Effect

Some of the new provisions are in effect already because they only clarify the existing law. Any new legal requirement added by the law will go into effect on August 1, 2024. Contact us if you have questions about this exciting new update or employment law more generally.

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Major Victory in Sex Discrimination Case, Lowering the Standard for Proving Discrimination

/in , ,

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling clarifying that any discriminatory treatment of an employee violates Title VII. The Court ruled in favor of an employee, Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, in her sex discrimination case against the City of St. Louis. Muldrow, who worked as a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s Intelligence Division, was transferred to a uniformed job in the Fifth District against her wishes. She alleged that the transfer was due to her being a woman and that it negatively impacted her employment terms and conditions.

The lower courts had rejected Muldrow’s claim, stating that she needed to show that the transfer caused a “significant” employment disadvantage. However, the Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating that Title VII’s text does not establish such a high bar for proving harm in a discrimination case.

Justice Kagan, who delivered the opinion of the Court, emphasized that while an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer (or other type of employment action) to prevail in a Title VII suit, they need not show that the injury satisfies any sort of significance test. The Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

This decision is a major victory for employees who face discrimination in the workplace, as it clarifies that they do not need to meet an elevated threshold of harm to pursue a Title VII claim. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of protecting workers from discriminatory practices that adversely affect their employment terms and conditions, regardless of the perceived significance of the harm caused.

If you have questions about the Muldrow decision, gender discrimination, or employment law generally, please contact us today.

 

Protecting Workers’ Rights: Understanding Employment Retaliation Laws in Minnesota

/in , ,

In the dynamic landscape of employment, workers’ rights and protections stand as pillars of ensuring fair treatment and equitable conditions in the workplace. Among these safeguards is the prohibition of employment retaliation, a crucial aspect of labor laws designed to shield employees from adverse actions by employers in response to protected activities. In the state of Minnesota, stringent laws are in place to safeguard workers against retaliation, fostering a culture of fairness and respect in the workplace.

Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws are enshrined in various statutes and regulations, primarily under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). These laws serve as powerful tools in protecting employees who exercise their rights or report unlawful conduct within their workplace.

The MHRA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discrimination claims. This includes actions such as filing a complaint, providing testimony, or assisting others in asserting their rights under the MHRA. The law covers various forms of retaliation, including termination, demotion, harassment, or any adverse employment action taken in response to protected activities.

Similarly, the MWA shields employees from retaliation when they report suspected violations of law or public policy by their employers. Protected disclosures under the MWA include reporting suspected or planned unlawful conduct, safety violations, fraud, or other illegal activities. Employers are prohibited from taking retaliatory measures against employees who make such reports, ensuring that whistleblowers can come forward without fear of repercussions. Protections against retaliation are very broad.

It’s important to note that Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws extend protection to a wide range of workers, including full-time, part-time, and temporary employees, as well as independent contractors in certain circumstances. Additionally, individuals who assist or support employees in exercising their rights are also safeguarded against retaliation under these and similar laws.

Employment retaliation can have serious consequences, not only for the individuals directly affected but also for the overall workplace environment and morale. By upholding strong protections against retaliation, Minnesota aims to foster a culture where employees feel empowered to assert their rights and speak out against injustices without fear of reprisal.

Employers found in violation of Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws may face significant legal consequences, including monetary damages, reinstatement of employment, and injunctive relief. Moreover, repeated violations can tarnish a company’s reputation and erode trust between employers and employees.

If you have additional questions about employment retaliation in Minnesota, or feel that you may have experienced retaliation, contact us today.

EEOC Issues Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations

/in ,

Last December, President Biden signed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) into law. The PWFA requires employers to accommodate employees who are affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions so that they can remain healthy while retaining their jobs.

This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule to implement and interpret the PWFA. The rule provides important clarifications on what the PWFA means, and outlines examples of situations where it would apply.

For example, telling your supervisor that you’re having trouble getting to work at your scheduled start time because of morning sickness counts as notifying your employer of your need for a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA.

Other reasonable accommodations include time off for medical appointments related to pregnancy or childbirth, more frequent bathroom breaks, or light duty due to pregnancy related limits on heavy lifting.

If you are experiencing discrimination or retaliation on the basis of your pregnancy or other protected status, contact Kitzer Rochel. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and understand your legal rights and options.

OSHA Retaliation Explained: Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions

/in , ,

As an employee, you have the right to work in a safe environment. If you believe that your workplace is unsafe, you have the right to report it without fear of retaliation. Unfortunately, many employers do not take kindly to employees who report unsafe working conditions, and they may retaliate against them. This retaliation is not only illegal, but it can also be dangerous for the employee and their coworkers.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) is a federal law that sets standards for workplace safety and health. Under this law, employees have the right to report unsafe working conditions to their employer or to OSHA without fear of retaliation. Retaliation can come in many forms, such as demotion, termination, reduced hours, or other adverse actions.

OSHA has a Whistleblower Protection Program that protects employees who report unsafe working conditions from retaliation. This program protects employees who report violations of OSHA regulations, as well as those who participate in OSHA inspections or proceedings.

If you believe that you have been retaliated against for reporting unsafe working conditions, you may have the right to pursue a claim. Contact experienced employment attorneys today to learn more about your rights.

Brian Rochel Testifies at Minnesota Senate in Favor of Noncompete Ban

/in , ,

On March 15, 2023, the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill that would ban noncompete agreements in Minnesota. Brian Rochel testified as an expert on the bill, SF 405, explaining how noncompete agreements harm workers and the economy.

The bill passed the Judiciary Committee and is moving quickly through the legislature.

If you have questions about noncompete agreements, including Minnesota and federal laws seeking to stop the problematic spread of noncompete agreements, please contact Kitzer Rochel.

Congress Passes New Critical Protections for Pregnant Workers

/in , ,

On December 22, 2022, the Senate passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Advocates for fair and equitable working conditions for pregnant workers have been fighting for passage of this Act over the past ten years and the bill is finally on its way to the White House after strong bipartisan support.

When a worker is pregnant, they may face difficult challenges at work. Oftentimes, they are asked to perform job duties that put their health and safety at risk; they may have their pay reduced or be required to take unpaid leave; or they could be terminated from their position because of their condition. These are all types of discrimination and retaliation the PWFA now prohibits.

The PWFA is intended to protect pregnant workers from experiencing this kind of treatment at a time when they need stability and security in their job the most.

If you are experiencing discrimination or retaliation on the basis of your pregnancy or other protected status, contact Kitzer Rochel. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and understand your legal rights and options.