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.

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.

Governor Walz’s Recent COVID-19 Order Gives Employees Important Rights

/in , , , ,

On May 13, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-54, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Among other things, the Governor’s executive order provides rights to Minnesota employees that all workers should be aware of.

First, the executive order prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees who ask their employers questions or expresses concerns about COVID-19 (the Coronavirus), or their health and safety regarding the virus outbreak.

Second, the executive order generally prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees who wear gloves, cloth, eye protection, or other protective gear in the course of their work.

Third, the executive order gives employees the right to refuse to work under conditions that they, in good faith, reasonably believe pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Fourth, the executive order gives employees the right to request the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (“DLI”) conduct an inspection of their workplace if they suspect a COVID-19 threat to health and/or safety is present.

Lastly, the executive order gives employees the right to seek reasonable accommodations related to COVID-19, including the ability to work from home, if possible.

All of these protections contain important caveats, so if you have questions about Executive Order 20-54, or COVID-19 at work, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer.

If you are an employee who has experienced difficult circumstances with your employer related to COVID-19, 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.

Kitzer Rochel, PLLP Defeats Summary Judgment in MHRA Disability Claims

/in , , ,

In Oliver v. MCTC, Kitzer Rochel attorney Brian Rochel, along with co-counsel Michelle Dye Neumann, successfully argued against the employer’s motion to dismiss Ms. Oliver’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claims. Ms. Oliver suffered a disabling injury at work and alleged that she was terminated because of her disability, and because she requested reasonable accommodation for her disability. The Minnesota District Court denied the motion, ruling that a jury could find in Ms. Oliver’s favor on her claims. The case will now proceed to a jury trial.

The court’s opinion is important because it held that Karst v. F.C. Hayer Co, 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989), a case long used by employers to fend off liability for disability discrimination, did not apply to Ms. Oliver’s claims. In doing so, the court narrowed the application of Karst and called into question whether it is still good law.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel Defeats Pretrial Motion to Dismiss, Court Limits Karst Ruling

/in , , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lindner’s retaliation claim. In an important opinion of first impression, the court held that Karst v. F.C. Hayer Co, 447 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989), which bars discrimination claims in certain cases, does not apply to retaliation or reprisal claims.  The court noted that “a reprisal claim is fundamentally different [than a disability claim] – such a claim is predicated not on an employer’s injury (or disability), but rather on his or her conduct.” Lindner’s claims will now proceed to trial before a federal jury.

Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel represent Plaintiff Jason Lindner in the employment retaliation and discrimination lawsuit.

Minnesota Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Ensuring Jury Trials in Retaliation Claims

/in , , ,

Phillip Kitzer and co-counsel Michelle Dye Neumann received a favorable decision in a landmark decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Darrel Schmitz v. United States Steel Corporation, Schmitz alleged he was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.  Schmitz requested a jury trial for his workers’ compensation retaliation claim under the Minnesota Constitution, but his request was denied.  Schmitz appealed the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that he was entitled to a jury under the Minnesota Constitution.  The Court of Appeals ruled in Schmitz’s favor, and U.S. Steel appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that the Minnesota Constitution guaranteed the right to a jury trial for employees claiming that they were terminated for seeking workers’ compensation benefits.

Kitzer & Rochel Defeat Summary Judgment in Federal Court

/in , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, Brian Rochel and Phillip Kitzer defeated summary judgment in U.S. District Court. Lindner’s claims involved FMLA interference and retaliation as well as for seeking time off from work related to his disability. After 18 years of employment, Jason Lindner was fired while on FMLA leave stemming from a recently-developed respiratory airway disease (RADs).  The person who decided to terminate Lindner, Trish Appleby, testified that she relied on video footage to disprove that Lindner fell in the parking lot, justifying her decision to terminate him for falsifying a workers’ compensation claim.

The Court held that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Donatelli’s proffered reasons for termination were pretext for retaliation. First, Appleby admitted she was skeptical of the injury even though Lindner’s account of the fall was “pretty much the same” to the account he gave her.  Second, the Court stated that the video was unclear and could reasonably discredit Appleby’s “adamant testimony” that she could “clearly” tell from the tape that he did not fall.  Likewise, Appleby adamantly claimed that Lindner’s doctor’s note did not contain “one objective” indication of injury, yet the doctor’s note did contain indications that Lindner was injured. Third, the Court found that the timing of Appleby’s investigation into the alleged fall could be considered suspicious.  Appleby did not take it upon herself to investigate the injury until after Lindner suffered the RADs injury and requested time off from work.  Fourth, Appleby testified that Lindner’s previous requests for time off constituted “performance problems” that could have led to his termination.  Finally, Appleby did not provide Lindner the same opportunities to remedy alleged behavioral problems that it provided other employees, even those who committed offenses she considered “flagrant.” The Court held, “This evidence of hostility combined with the timing of his termination and the shaky foundation of her professed belief could lead a reasonable jury to discredit Appleby and conclude her decision was in fact motivated by Lindner’s medical leave.”

Likewise, the Court denied Donatelli’s summary judgment motion on Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim.  Although Donatelli’s argued that Lindner “never” made an FMLA request, the Court found that the argument is “clearly contradicted by the record.” Lindner submitted a complete FMLA request for the day before he was terminated, and Donatelli’s was “clearly on notice of his potential need for FMLA leave because Appleby raised the issue with him and sent him FMLA paperwork, which stated he was eligible for leave[]”. Accordingly, the Court held that Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim could proceed to jury trial along with his retaliation claim under state and federal law.

The full opinion, issued by U.S. Judge Richard J. Kyle, is available here.