Brian Rochel Named to America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators®

/in ,

We’re excited to announce that Brian Rochel has been selected for inclusion in America’s Top 100 High Stakes Litigators®. This prestigious honor is reserved for trial lawyers nationwide who consistently achieve exceptional results in high-value, high-stakes cases—those involving significant financial exposure or substantial legal impact.

Selection to America’s Top 100 is by invitation only and involves a rigorous review of a lawyer’s professional achievements, litigation history, peer reputation, and case results. Fewer than 1% of attorneys in the United States receive this distinction.

Brian’s recognition reflects his unwavering dedication to advocating for employees and individuals in complex employment disputes. With a career built on strategic litigation, thoughtful advocacy, and proven results, Brian continues to demonstrate the skill and commitment that define the very best in the profession.

All of us at Kitzer Rochel are proud to celebrate this achievement. Congratulations, Brian!

You’ve Been Let Go or Treated Unfairly: What to Say, Do, and Document

/in ,

Losing your job—or facing unfair treatment—can be overwhelming. But what you say and do next can protect your rights. Here are the essentials: how to document what’s happening, what to say during termination, and how to approach a severance agreement.

1. Start Documenting Immediately

If you’re dealing with discrimination, retaliation, or a sudden termination, begin documenting right away. Clear, dated notes are enough.

Include:

  • What happened: Key incidents, dates, times, and people involved.
  • What was said: Exact quotes when possible.
  • Witnesses: Anyone who saw or heard the events.
  • Evidence: Save emails, texts, reviews, policies, and screenshots.

Good documentation strengthens your credibility and creates a clear timeline.

2. What to Say (and Not Say) When You’re Fired or Pressured to Resign

If you’re terminated or pushed out, stay calm. Don’t argue, admit fault, or sign anything on the spot.

Do say:

  • “Can I receive the reason for my termination in writing?”
  • “I’d like time to review any paperwork before signing.”
  • “I’ll follow up with questions after I’ve had time to process this.”

Don’t say:

  • “I guess I deserved this.”
  • “I’m going to sue you.”
  • “Fine, I quit.”

In Minnesota, you can request a written reason for your termination, and the employer must provide it within 10 working days.

3. Should You Sign a Severance Agreement?

A severance package often requires you to give up legal claims. Before signing:

  • Read carefully: You may be waiving rights related to discrimination, retaliation, or unpaid wages.
  • Look for restrictive clauses: Non-disparagement or non-rehire terms can limit your options.
  • Check your timeline: Workers 40+ must be given at least 21 days to review and 7 days to revoke. Even if younger, you don’t need to sign immediately.

Severance is often negotiable—especially if you were treated unfairly. Talk to an employment lawyer before signing.

Final Thoughts

If you’re let go or mistreated, pause before reacting. Document everything, don’t sign under pressure, and understand your rights. Getting fired doesn’t erase your protections—in many cases, it’s when they matter most.

If you want help reviewing your options, contact our firm and we will see if we can help.

Kitzer Rochel Attorney Brian Rochel Quoted in Law360

/in , ,

Kitzer Rochel, PLLP is proud to announce that partner Brian Rochel was recently quoted in Law360 Employment Authority in an article covering the upcoming Eighth Circuit arguments on Minnesota’s construction worker classification law.

The case—Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors Inc. et al. v. Nicole Blissenbach et al.—challenges a 2024 law establishing a 14-factor test for determining whether construction workers are properly classified as independent contractors. Trade groups argue that the statute is too vague to enforce, while the State of Minnesota contends the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the challenge.

In his comments, Brian explained that the dispute raises a fundamental question: whether the law creates a “tough but clear compliance standard” or instead a “vague, punitive approach” that contractors cannot realistically follow. He also noted that the Eighth Circuit may weigh whether contractors must begin complying now or whether courts should take a “wait-and-see” approach.

This litigation has important implications for Minnesota workers and employers. Worker misclassification can deprive employees of critical protections like minimum wage, overtime pay, and benefits, while also creating compliance uncertainty for employers.

The full Law360 article, “8th Circ. To Weigh Minn. Classification Challenge” (Sept. 12, 2025), can be accessed here.

Brian Rochel Presents at National Employment Lawyers’ Association’s Annual Convention

/in , ,

Last week, Brian Rochel had the privilege of presenting at the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) Annual Convention in Baltimore, MD. Brian’s presentation, “Anatomy of an Arbitration,” walked through the arbitration process step by step, from strategy considerations before filing through final hearing and enforcement of awards.

Many employees are forced into arbitration due to mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment agreements. Arbitration can feel mysterious and intimidating, especially since it is a private process and decisions are often not public. In his presentation, Brian aimed to demystify arbitration for fellow employee advocates by many ways that arbitration actually benefits workers. Brian and his fellow panelists discussed, among other things:

  • Strategic considerations before filing: weighing risks, costs, forum rules, and arbitrator selection.
  • Pleading standards and motions practice in arbitration forums.
  • Discovery in arbitration, including handling document requests, depositions, and subpoenas under applicable rules.
  • Pre-hearing and dispositive motions: when and how to file, and strategic pitfalls.
  • The arbitration hearing itself: preparation, presenting evidence, direct and cross-examination, and closing arguments.
  • Post-hearing considerations, including enforcement, vacatur, and potential appeals.

As employee advocates, it is critical that we do not run from arbitration but embrace it the same way we embrace jury trials–and do our best to win for our clients.

Brian thanks NELA for the invitation to speak, and to the many attorneys across the country who continue to fight for employee rights in every forum—courtrooms, arbitrations, and beyond.

Employment Protections in Minnesota: What Employees Need to Know in a Changing Landscape

/in ,

The Trump Administration has been direct in its efforts to combat decades-old nondiscrimination standards. But while its actions have created a lot of (justifiable) coverage and outrage, it is important to understand the vast majority of legal protections in employment remain untouched.

Along with nationwide legal actions challenging the recent orders and changes, there are still laws—especially in Minnesota—that protect workers.

  1. Antidiscrimination Protection

Federal contractors have long been required to provide equal employment opportunity. A recent executive order removed that requirement and provided that the Department of Labor’s contract office would no longer promote diversity or affirmative action.

But this does not remove equal employment protection for employees—it only removes that particular requirement for companies to contract with the federal government. The protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) are not changed, and all employers in Minnesota must follow them. It is still unlawful to discriminate based on race, religion, disability, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity in Minnesota.

  1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Despite some shake-ups within the EEOC, including the dismissal of two of its three Democratic Commissioners, its essential work remains. The EEOC cannot currently issue new rules or policies, because it no longer has enough Commissioners to vote on them.

But you can still file an EEOC charge. Even if the EEOC does not pursue your case, you can still request a Notice of Right to Sue and pursue your claim in court. The same rights in Title VII and the MHRA still protect you, and are being enforced not only by the EEOC but also the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and the courts. You can also file a charge with the MDHR if you have experienced discrimination for virtually the same reasons as with the EEOC.

  1. LGBTQ+ Protection

LGBTQ+ rights are involved in the actions above as well as two other executive orders. The first order specifies that the United States only recognizes two sexes, and explains how its policies will define and apply “male” and “female.” It requires federal agencies and employees to use the approved terminology in all communications and remove any references to gender or gender identity. For example, any government form to be filled out must list sex as male or female, and cannot ask about a person’s gender identity or include any other options, such as non-binary. The second order is about transgender people participating in sports, and applies sex-based distinctions that disregard gender identity.

But these orders have been challenged in court for violating the U.S. Constitution, among other things. And states still have protections that exceed federal protections. Minnesota, in particular, has protections for LGBTQ+ people that remain unchanged by these orders, notably the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has recently expressed that the executive order does not override the MHRA.

Even with the federal policy changes in civil rights protection and enforcement, Minnesota (among other states) has strong laws that still protect your rights. The MHRA is among the most protective laws in the country, and it is unchanged.

Conclusion

If you have questions about employment law in the wake of the Trump administration’s efforts to change legal norms, contact us today to learn more.

The Threat to DEI Programs and Worker Protections: What Employees Need to Know

/in , ,

Attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs have escalated, with some companies and lawmakers scaling back efforts to promote fair hiring and advancement. Recent government actions, including pressure from state attorneys general, raise concerns about workplace discrimination. However, federal and Minnesota laws still prohibit bias in employment, and rolling back DEI may actually increase legal risks for employers.

DEI Does Not Mean Hiring Unqualified Candidates

DEI programs do not require companies to hire unqualified applicants. Instead, they help ensure fair access to opportunities by addressing barriers that have historically excluded certain groups. These policies expand applicant pools, reduce bias in hiring, and foster inclusive workplaces—all while keeping merit and qualifications at the core of employment decisions. Misconceptions that DEI lowers standards misrepresent its purpose, which is to create a fair and competitive job market.

Workplace Discrimination Remains Illegal

Despite efforts to dismantle DEI, federal and Minnesota laws still prohibit workplace discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provide further protections. Minnesota’s Human Rights Act (MHRA) goes even further, banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and more.

Ending DEI Could Be Evidence of Discrimination

Companies that eliminate DEI efforts may be increasing their legal exposure. The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) recently explained why litigation risk increases as private employers abandon DEI efforts. Courts could view these rollbacks as:

  • A Recognition of Past Bias: If a company once acknowledged inequities and acted to fix them, removing DEI programs could signal a return to exclusionary practices.
  • A Sign of Hostility Toward Inclusion: Firing DEI officers or dissolving employee resource groups may suggest discriminatory intent.
  • A Basis for Disparate Impact Claims: If workplace diversity declines after DEI cuts, employees may have grounds for legal action.

Minnesota Employees Have Strong Protections

The MHRA ensures that eliminating DEI cannot justify discrimination in hiring, pay, or promotions. Employees facing workplace bias can file complaints with their employer, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

Conclusion

DEI programs aim to create fair workplaces by ensuring qualified individuals aren’t excluded due to bias. As some employers back away from these commitments, workers should stay informed of their rights. Companies that retreat from DEI without safeguarding against discrimination may face legal challenges—and employees should know the law remains on their side. Contact us today if you have questions about DEI efforts, discrimination, or other human rights issues at your workplace.

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.