Brian Rochel Presents at CLE on Minnesota Employment Law

/in , ,

On March 30, 2022, Brian Rochel presented on a panel entitled “McDonnell Douglas and the Direct Method – A New Normal on the Horizon?” The presentation focused on the McDonnell Douglas (or indirect) burden shifting method for proving discrimination and retaliation claims. The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently deciding whether Minnesota courts will continue applying the McDonnell Douglas framework. In Hanson v. DNR, the Supreme Court was asked to abolish use of the McDonnell Douglas framework because it has become problematic over the several decades it has developed.

Hanson, along with amici curiae Minnesota NELA and ELA-UM, argued that McDonnell Douglas has been misused on Rule 56 and resulted in dismissing employment claims that should appropriately be tried to a jury.

In the March 30 CLE, Brian laid out the arguments made by the employee in Hanson, and the panelists discussed the pros and cons of McDonnell Douglas in employment litigation–as well as what employment litigation may look like in the absence of the familiar framework.

The panel also discussed Friend v. Gopher Company, Inc., a Minnesota Court of Appeals case holding that McDonnell Douglas is not required to be applied in every case. Brian argued that means that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hanson v. DNR, employees may still choose to forego McDonnell Douglas in favor of the “direct method” to prove cases at trial and present evidence on summary judgment.

A decision is expected in Hanson v. DNR soon, check back for more updates. If you have questions about Minnesota employment law, proving claims of discrimination or retaliation, or related topics, please contact us.

Former Employee Awarded $1.1 Million in Verdict for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

/in ,

In March 2022, former Chisago County crime analyst Michelle Jacobson was awarded $1.1 million by a jury in her lawsuit against her former employer, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office and former Sheriff Richard Duncan. Ms. Jacobson’s complaint alleged Mr. Duncan sexually harassed her during her employment. Judge Susan Richard Nelson said that Mr. Duncan’s actions were “extreme and outrageous.”

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §363A et seq., sexual harassment is recognized as an unfair discriminatory employment practice and is illegal. Ms. Jacobson experienced sexual harassment in the form of sexual advances by her supervisor.

If you have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination the workplace, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

Biden Signs New Law Limiting Arbitration in Sexual Harassment Claims

/in ,

Employment claims are often subject to arbitration clauses. This means that employees who want to assert their rights and file a lawsuit are forced to arbitrate their claims instead of going to court. While there are some advantages to arbitration, the arbitration process often favors employers and arbitration clauses reduce the options available to employees in pursuing their claims. Arbitration is also private, which means that workers and sexual harassment survivors are not allowed to tell their story or have their case heard publicly.

On March 3, 2022, President Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. This new law amends the Federal Arbitration Act to render pre-dispute arbitration clauses unenforceable for sexual assault and sexual harassment claims. This is a step forward in restoring the ability to choose how to pursue these two types of claims.

If you have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options in light of this new law.

When Do I Get My Final Paycheck?

/in ,

When an employee resigns or is terminated, they usually wonder when they will get their last paycheck. When must a company pay a final paycheck, and when could it become wage theft?

First, if an employee is discharged or terminated, then they must be paid “immediately upon demand.” That means that an employee can request a final paycheck immediately after learning they were fired. An employer then has 24 hours to provide the final paycheck after that request or demand.

Second, if an employee gives proper notice of resignation, employers may provide a paycheck on the employee’s last day at work. But employers are NOT legally required to do so. An employer has up to the pay period following the employee’s final day (that is more than 5 days after the employee quit) to provide an employee their final paycheck. But it cannot be longer than 20 days after separation. So, if an employee resigned on the same day as their “payday,” that doesn’t mean that an employee will receive their final paycheck on that day.

If you resigned from an employer and the next pay period has passed and you did not receive full compensation you may be looking at potential wage theft. Similarly, if you resigned from an employer more than 20 days ago and you have not received your final paycheck, you may be looking at potential wage theft. State and federal laws prohibit various forms of wage theft.

If you have questions about wage theft, a final paycheck, or other employment law questions, please contact us today. We are happy to answer questions and assess if we can help with your situation.

What Does “Protected Status” Mean in Discrimination Law?

/in ,

Have you suffered discrimination at your workplace? Are you wondering if there is anything you can do about it? How can you protect yourself? What laws are set in place to protect employees like you?

Unfortunately, these are all questions that some employees may encounter during their employment. This may involve confusing legal terminology, laws and policies that can be difficult to understand, especially for someone who may be experiencing discrimination at the time. The good news is that there are laws set in place to protect employees from being discriminated against by an employer.

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protect workers from discrimination. The laws refer to protected classes. It is illegal to discriminate against an employee because of their membership in a protected class. When it comes to employment discrimination, protected classes refer to a person’s race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, public assistance, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, and local human rights commission activity.

This means that employers cannot discriminate against employees, or treat them differently, based on any of these protected classes. Now, discrimination can look different for everyone, and it can involve various types of negative treatment against someone, so it is important to speak to an attorney that specializes in these types of cases. The law in this area is complicated and changes frequently.

If you feel you have experienced discrimination or retaliation at work because you belong to a protected class, our attorneys at Kitzer Rochel are here to help. Please contact us today. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower issues in the workplace.

The Supreme Court Weighs in on COVID-19 Vaccines: What It Means for Employees

/in , ,

What is the vaccine mandate?  

  • In September 2021, President Biden issued an executive order requiring federal employees and contractors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (the Coronavirus).  
  • In November 2021, President Biden issued two additional executive orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine mandates that are were reviewed by the Supreme Court.  
    • The first requires employers with 100+ employees to mandate vaccines (or weekly testing for those who do not want to be vaccinated).  
    • The second requires that healthcare facilities which receive federal funding implement a similar vaccine policy.  
  • In January 2022, the Supreme Court struck down the first of the November 2021 rules. It held that it is unconstitutional to require employers to mandate vaccines and weekly testing.  

So, what does all of this mean for me? 

  • If you are a federal employee, you must be fully vaccinated. 
  • If you are employed by a healthcare facility that receives funds through Medicare or Medicaid, you must be fully vaccinated or undergo weekly testing for COVID-19. 

Can my employer mandate vaccines, testing, and masks if it chooses?  

  • Yes. The Supreme Court did not ban employers from choosing to require that employees be vaccinated or undergo testing. It only prevented the government from mandating that employers implement this policy.  
  • However, if your employer is a healthcare facility that receives federal funding (through Medicaid or Medicare), then it is still required to mandate vaccines and weekly testing.  

My employer is a healthcare facility that receives federal funding and I think it is violating the vaccine mandate. Can I be punished for filing a complaint? 

  • No. Many statutes prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who report legal violations or participate in investigations of alleged violations.  
  • Employees can and should report violations of workplace safety laws, including federal and state OSHA regulations related to COVID-19.  

 

Am I Protected If I Blow the Whistle at Work?

/in ,

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA) protects employees who “blow the whistle,” in their workplaces. This means employees who refuse to engage in illegal activity at work or who report illegal activity. To prove a whistleblower claim in Minnesota, the employee must show (1) that they engaged in statutorily protected conduct; (2) that they suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the two.[1]

What activity is protected by the MWA?

Employees who report a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of a state or federal law or rule to an employer or government official are protected under the MWA.[2] Employees who are requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry are also protected.[3] The MWA also protects employees who refuse an order from their employer that they believe in good faith to be unlawful if they inform their employer that that is why they are refusing the order.[4] The MWA also provides protections for employees who report substandard quality of health care services in a health care facility, provider, or organization.[5] Public employees are protected if they communicate the findings of studies or reports that they believe to be truthful and accurate.[6] Similarly, state government employees who communicate information relating to state services that they believe to be truthful and accurate to legislators or legislative auditors or constitutional officers are protected by the MWA.[7]

In 2013 the Minnesota legislature amended the MWA to include additional, robust protections for employees who report unlawful activities.[8] Specifically, the legislature amended the definition of “good faith” report to mean any report of suspected violations of the law as long as the reports were neither knowingly false nor in reckless disregard of the truth.[9] Importantly, the 2013 MWA amendments also added protection for employees reporting common law violations from retaliatory discharge.

What is an adverse employment action?

A basic example of adverse employment action is termination of employment. However, the MWA prohibits any form of “penalizing” an employee, which includes anything that would dissuade a worker from reporting illegal conduct. This includes harassment, reducing pay, reducing hours, or other forms of penalizing a worker.

Constructive discharge is also an adverse employment action. This occurs “when an employer deliberately renders the employee’s working conditions intolerable, thereby forcing her to quit.”[10] Whether the working conditions are intolerable is determined using an objective standard, considering whether a reasonable person in the same situation would find the conditions intolerable.[11] Further, if an employee resigns because they think there is no possibility of fair treatment by their employer, this can constitute constructive discharge.[12] This might occur if an employee reports illegal conduct or refuses to break the law, and their employer then makes working conditions intolerable for that employee. Subjecting an employee to a hostile environment can also be considered an adverse employment action.[13]

How do I show a causal connection?

This simply means evidence that an employee was treated badly, or penalized, because the worker reported violations of law (or refused to participate in them). This evidence takes many forms. Statements from a manager, or treating workers differently are examples of proving retaliation. Courts have also found that close proximity between protected conduct and adverse employment action is compelling evidence of a causal connection.[14] That means that if the adverse employment action occurred shortly after the protected conduct, there is likely a causal connection between the two. For example, if an employee reports a suspected violation of the law to their employer and they are fired the next day, it is likely that the two events are related, or causally connected.

What should I do if I my employer terminated my employment or retaliated against me for reporting violations or refusing to engage in illegal activity?

Contact us at Kitzer Rochel. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

_____

[1] Dietrich v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 536 N.W.2d 319, 327 (Minn. 1995).

[2] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(1).

[3] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(2).

[4] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(3).

[5] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(4).

[6] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(5).

[7] Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(6).

[8] Minn. Stat.  § 181.931

[9] Minn. Stat. § 181.931, subd. 4.

[10] Tatum v. Ark. Dep’t. of Health, 411 F.3d 955, 960 (8th Cir. 2005).

[11] Gartman v. Gencorp, Inc., 120 F.3d 127, 130 (8th Cir. 1997).

[12] Dixon v. Mount Olivet Careview Home, Civ. 09-1099, 2010 WL 3733936 *8 (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2010)

[13] Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 805 (1998); Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998); Frieler v. Carlson Mktg. Grp., 751 N.W.2d 558, 570 (Minn. 2008).

[14] See, e.g., Dietrich, 536 N.W.2d at 327 (citing Hubbard v. U.P.I., Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 444 (Minn. 1983) (holding that causal connection requirement may be satisfied by the temporal proximity between protected conduct and adverse employment action)).

How Do I Know If I Can Request FMLA Leave?

/in ,

Employees may request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have worked for the employer for at least 12 months and have 1,250 hours of service in the previous 12 months. In addition, the employer must have at least 50 employees employed within 75 miles of the location the employee works at.

An employee may request FMLA for one of the following reasons:

  • Incapacity due to pregnancy, prenatal medical care or childbirth;
  • To care for the employee’s child after birth, or placement for adoption or foster care;
  • To care for the employee’s spouse son, daughter or parent who has a serious health condition; or
  • If the employee has a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform their job duties.

After an employee confirms that they meet the eligibility requirements and that they have a reason that entitles such employee to receive FMLA benefits, but their employer has denied their FMLA request, an employee may file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. An employee may also file a private lawsuit against their employer.

An employer cannot interfere with, restrain, or deny any employee of any right provided under FMLA. It is also unlawful for any employer to discriminate against an employee, penalize an employee or terminate an employee for submitting an FMLA request or for using their FMLA benefits.

Employees of an airline flight crew, military members and/or military families may be entitled to additional benefits and should consult with an employment attorney if they have more specific questions.

If you feel you have experienced discrimination or retaliation at work related to FMLA, our attorneys at Kitzer Rochel are here to help. Contact us today. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower issues in the workplace.

56th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

/in

On this day 56 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, providing workplace, public accommodation, education, & voting protections to children, women, racial and religious minorities.

Following the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (declaring African Americans citizens of the United States) and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (banning racial discrimination in places of public accommodation). These sweeping pieces of Reconstruction legislation were an attempt to extend equality under the law to all Americans.

But, in 1883, the U.S Supreme Court stifled these efforts in the Civil Rights Cases, ruling federal law could not ban discrimination in the private sector. This decision allowed discrimination in the workplace to continue, leading to the Jim Crow segregation era.

In addition to extending protections against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reversed that Supreme Court precedent from the Reconstruction Era.

Because of the 1964 Act, every American has workplace protections against discrimination and retaliation, among other things.

If you feel like you’ve been discriminated or retaliation against, we are here to help. Our firm, Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, represents employees facing discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

Abou B. Amara, Jr., Attorney

Supreme Court Declares Sexual Orientation Discrimination Illegal in the Workplace

/in ,

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision—in Bostock v. Clayton County—that expanded civil rights workplace protections to members of the LGBT community.

For years, countless Americans asked, “Can I be fired for being gay or lesbian?” or “Can I be fired for being transgender?” Prior to this decision, in a majority of states, the answer to those questions was yes. Employers were legally able to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The central question the Court considered was whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of … sex” included sexual orientation and gender identity. In response to this question, Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “the answer is clear.”

In the Court’s 6-3 opinion, Justice Gorsuch stated “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The Court’s decision in Bostock will immediately provide federal protection to more than one million LGBT employees across the Nation, ensuring that they have recourse if their employer discriminates or retaliates against them based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Because of this decision, members of the LGBT community now have federal protection against workplace discrimination in all 50 states.

If you are an employee who has believes you have been discriminated or retaliated against based on your sexual orientation and/or gender identity, we are here to help. Please contact Teske, Katz, Kitzer, and Rochel, PLLP. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower related issues in the workplace.

Abou B. Amara, Jr., Attorney