Blog Elements - Kitzer Rochel PLLP

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

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

August 18, 2017/in Blog

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 […]

Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Broad Protection for Whistleblowers

August 9, 2017/in Blog, Employment, News

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

August 18, 2017/in Blog

Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Broad Protection for Whistleblowers

August 9, 2017/in Blog, Employment, News

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

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

August 18, 2017/in Blog

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

August 9, 2017/in Blog, Employment, News

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.

Half Sized Blog Element (Single Author Style)

Half Sized Blog Element (Multi Author Style)

Full Sized Blog Element (Big Preview Pic)

Disclaimer