Tag Archive for: discrimination

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.

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.

 

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA): Explained

/in

Employment discrimination is a serious issue that affects many people in the workforce, and Minnesota is no exception. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) is a state law that protects employees from discrimination in the workplace based on several factors, including race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and religion.

Under the MHRA, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on any of the legally-protected protected characteristics. Discrimination can take many forms, such as denying someone a job, demoting them, or firing them because of their protected status. It can also include harassment, such as unwanted sexual advances or racist jokes in the workplace.

Retaliation against an employee who files a discrimination complaint is also illegal under the MHRA. Employers cannot take any adverse action against an employee who has made a complaint, such as firing or demoting them, because they have exercised their legal rights.

The MHRA generally applies to all employers with one or more employees, regardless of the size of the business. This means that even small businesses with only a few employees are required to follow the law and cannot discriminate against employees based on their protected status.

In addition to the MHRA, there are federal laws that protect employees from discrimination, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the MHRA offers broader protections than federal law in some areas, such as sexual orientation and marital status.

Employment discrimination is a serious issue that can have significant consequences for employees, including lost wages, emotional distress, and damage to their career prospects.

If you believe you have experienced discrimination at work, it is important to know your rights and take action to protect yourself. Contact experienced attorneys at Kitzer Rochel today.

Are Real Estate Agents Protected from Harassment and Discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)?

/in ,

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA” or “Act”) protects individuals from discrimination in the workplace,[1] including sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination.[2] Workers are further protected against termination, demotion, or other retaliatory employment actions in response to reporting discrimination or sexual harassment.[3] Ultimately, the MHRA was designed to “provide more expansive protections to Minnesotans than federal law,” its provisions intended to be “construed liberally.”[4]

Enacted in 1973, the law under the MHRA is generally well-developed. That said, few cases have been litigated regarding MHRA protections for real estate agents in particular. This gap in litigation has led to a gray zone surrounding the question of whether real estate agents receive MHRA protection for workplace harassment and discrimination.

This question can be answered through two main lenses: (1) by considering real estate agents as employees for purposes of the MHRA or (2) by looking to other subdivisions of the MHRA that grant real estate agents protection regardless of employee status.

The MHRA expressly protects employees from unfair discriminatory practices and retaliation.[5] Courts traditionally look to a variety of factors to determine whether an individual constitutes an employee or an independent contractor.[6] Such factors include, for example, the method of payment, who provides the necessary tools/office space, and the level of control the employer has over the worker.[7] Under Minnesota law, the level of control an employer has over an individual is the most important factor—the more control, the more likely that person constitutes an employee.[8] While the control factor plays heavily into MHRA cases, courts have opted to reframe the analysis as one that examines the economic realities underlying the work relationship to decide “whether the worker is likely to be susceptible to the discriminatory practices Title VII was designed to eliminate.”[9] Given the close working relationship between real estate agents and their brokerages (which agents typically have exclusive contracts with), Minnesota courts would likely consider real estate agents to be employees for purposes of the MHRA, as their position leaves them “susceptible to the discriminatory practices Title VII was designed to eliminate.”[10]

That said, because the MHRA was designed to be widely inclusive, real estate agents may find protection under other sections of the Act regardless of employee status.

The MHRA also prohibits any “person having the right to sell, rent or lease any real property from “discriminat[ing] against any person or group of persons because of … sex … in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any real property or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith.”[11] Current case law addressing this section of the MHRA primarily concerns the relationship between a seller and buyer or renter of real property.[12] However, the language of the statute prohibiting sex discrimination in connection with real estate services may apply to the broker-agent relationship. As service providers in the real estate industry, real estate agents may fall under the protection afforded by the MHRA.

Similarly, the MHRA prohibits “any real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee or agent thereof [from] intentionally engag[ing] in any reprisal against any person because that person opposed” a forbidden.[13] The language “prohibiting reprisal against any person” likely supports any report by a real estate agent of sexual harassment or discrimination as protected, regardless of employee status.

Finally, the MHRA forbids “business discrimination.” In other words, contracting parties cannot “discriminate on the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract because of a person’s race, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, or disability.”[14] In the agent-broker context, the following examples would constitute business discrimination under the MHRA:

  • A broker or agency’s termination of a real estate agent’s contract because of discriminatory reasons;
  • A broker or agency’s termination of a real estate agent’s contract because the agent reported discrimination or sexual harassment; and
  • A broker or agency offering a contract to a real estate agent contingent on that agent submitting to romantic or sexual advances.

Ultimately, the law governing the broker-agent relationship under the MHRA is slim. While this article provides a general overview of relevant Minnesota law, each case presents unique circumstances that are best analyzed by a practicing employment law attorney.

NOTES:

[1] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.08.

[2] Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 13.

[3] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.15.

[4] Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222, 229 (Minn. 2020) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 363A.04).

[5] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.08.

[6] Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751-52 (1989).

[7] Abel v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., 947 N.W.2d 58, 75 (Minn. 2020).

[8] Id.

[9] Wilde v. County of Kandiyohi, 15 F.3d 103, 105 (8th Cir. 1994).

[10] Id.

[11] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.09, Subd. 1(2).

[12] See, e.g., Fletcher Props. v. City of Minneapolis, 947 N.W.2d 1, 16 (Minn. 2020) (noting that the refusal to rent property because of public assistance use constitutes an unfair discriminatory practice); Fletcher Props. v. City of Minneapolis, 931 N.W.2d 410, 416 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019) (noting that landlords cannot discriminate against tenants with regard to public assistance status).

[13] Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.15.

[14] Minn. Stat. § 363A.17(3); see also Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 30 (“person” includes partnership, association, [and] corporation . . .”).

Minnesota is an At-Will Employment State, What Does That Mean?

/in ,

When you hear that Minnesota is an “at-will” employment state, you may wonder what that means for you as an employee. It simply means you can quit your job for any reason at any time, you do not have to give notice nor a reason to your employer for leaving your position.

However, it also means an employer can terminate your employment for any reason at any time as long as the reason for termination is not illegal. For example, it is illegal for an employer to terminate employment based on an employee’s race, age, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, to name a few protected classes and statuses. Similarly, it is illegal for an employer to terminate an employee because the employee reported something unlawful, like discrimination or corporate wrongdoing.

Being an “at-will” employment state makes it easy for an employee and their employer to part ways if the position is not working for one or both of the parties. But, if you feel you have been wrongfully terminated based on discrimination, 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.

Is Long Haul COVID-19 a Disability under the Law?

/in , ,

After dealing with COVID-19 for over two years, many people who have dealt with the novel coronavirus are also dealing with longer term symptoms and they are not going away easily. This is known as “Long Haul COVID-19.” Long Haul COVID-19 is becoming more common and impacting the lives of many people. It causes many problems that medical professionals and scientists are still working to understand.

For example, Long Haul COVID-19 can lead to cognitive difficulties and make it difficult for employees to complete their work responsibilities in the same manner they could before becoming infected.

This raises the question: is Long Haul COVID-19 considered an “actual” disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

According to the U.S. Department of Health Human Services, Long Haul COVID-19 can be a disability under the ADA if it substantially limits one or more major life activities. This includes any physical or mental impairment caused by Long Haul COVID-19, so long as it substantially limits a major life activity. The law is very similar under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA is Minnesota’s law protecting workers who are disabled, which may include Long Haul COVID-19.

The symptoms of Long Haul COVID-19 vary widely and can be different for everyone. Symptoms can last anywhere between weeks to months or even longer. Every case of Long Haul COVID-19 is different. Therefore, an assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a person’s case of Long Haul COVID-19 substantially limits a major life activity.

If an employee has Long Haul COVID-19 that substantially limits one or more major life activities, that employee is entitled to the same protections from discrimination as any person with a disability under the ADA or MHRA.

This also requires employers make reasonable accommodation for employees who have Long Haul COVID-19, so long as it substantially or materially limits a major life activity.

An employer’s requirement to make such accommodations is based on many factors, for example, the size of the employer and the job duties the employee is responsible for based on their job role. Thus, it is important to seek legal advice if you have questions about your specific situation.

If you feel you have experienced discrimination and/or retaliation at work, based on Long Haul COVID-19  symptoms, our attorneys at Kitzer Rochel, PLLP are here to help. We advocate on behalf of employees facing discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower issues in the workplace. Contact us today for a case evaluation.

 

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.

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.

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.