Tag Archive for: employment law

Retaliation: The Most Common Employment Claim

/in ,

Retaliation is one of the most common employment claims brought in Minnesota. In simple terms, retaliation occurs when an employer takes negative action against an employee because the employee exercised a legal right.

Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a person who opposes discrimination, files a charge, or participates in an investigation or proceeding under the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.15.

Protected activity can include reporting discrimination or harassment, participating in a workplace investigation, requesting a disability accommodation, or filing a charge with a government agency. Federal law similarly prohibits retaliation for engaging in protected equal employment opportunity activity.

Minnesota law also protects employees from retaliation in other contexts. For example, the Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects employees who report suspected violations of law or participate in investigations. See Minn. Stat. § 181.932. Retaliation is not limited to termination. It can include demotion, discipline, reduced hours, negative evaluations, threats, or other actions that would discourage a reasonable employee from raising concerns. One important point: employees may still be protected even if the underlying complaint is not ultimately proven. The law generally protects workers who raise concerns in good faith.

If you have questions about retaliation, please contact us today.

Are Non-Compete Agreements Still Enforceable in Minnesota?

/in ,

Minnesota significantly changed its non-compete law in 2023. Under the statute, most non-compete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2023 are void and unenforceable. The law defines a “covenant not to compete” as an agreement that restricts an employee, after leaving employment, from working for another employer, working in a geographic area, or working in a similar role. See Minn. Stat. § 181.988.

The new law was designed to make it easier for employees to change jobs without fear of legal threats from former employers. But the statute does not prohibit every type of post-employment restriction. Employers may still require agreements protecting confidential information, trade secrets, or client relationships, such as non-solicitation provisions.

The law also prevents employers from requiring Minnesota employees to litigate employment disputes outside Minnesota or under another state’s law as a condition of employment. This protection applies to employees who primarily live and work in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 3.

Even with the new statute, questions about enforceability still arise. The answer may depend on when the agreement was signed, how it is written, and whether it is truly a non-compete or another type of restriction. If you have questions about a noncompete agreement, contact us today.

Brian Rochel Moderates MN-NELA Conversation with Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko

/in

Brian Rochel led a conversation with Judge Douglas Micko of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, moderated by Brian Rochel of Kitzer Rochel, PLLP. The CLE event was hosted by Minnesota NELA and featured a candid and practical discussion with perspectives from the bench.

Judge Micko reflected on his professional path from employment lawyer and active NELA member to federal magistrate judge. Drawing on his experience presiding over employment cases in the District of Minnesota, he offered practical insight into nearly every aspect of federal practice for employment lawyers—from motion practice and discovery disputes to settlement conferences and effective advocacy before the court.

The conversation provided useful perspective from both sides of the bench and practical guidance on credibility, efficiency, and persuasive advocacy in federal employment litigation.

Minnesota NELA thanked Judge Micko and Brian Rochel for an engaging and informative discussion.

Can Your Employer Require You to Return to the Office?

/in , ,

Many employers have begun requiring employees who worked remotely during the pandemic to return to the office. In general, employers have broad authority to decide where work is performed and may adopt return-to-office policies.

However, the analysis can change when an employee has a medical condition or disability that affects their ability to work on site. Both federal law and the Minnesota Human Rights Act require employers to consider reasonable accommodations in certain circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 363A.08.

In some situations, remote work may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explains that working from home can be appropriate where an employee’s disability limits their ability to work in the workplace and the job’s essential functions can be performed remotely. Employers are generally expected to engage in an interactive process to evaluate accommodation requests rather than simply deny them.

Whether remote work is reasonable often depends on the employee’s job duties and the employer’s operations. Questions such as whether the employee previously worked remotely, whether in-person tasks are truly required, and whether remote work would create undue hardship for the employer may all be relevant.

For employees facing a return-to-office mandate, the key issue is often not whether the employer can adopt the policy, but how the employer responds when an employee requests an accommodation under disability law. If you have questions about returning to work, contact our firm today.

Brian Rochel Presents CLE on Rethinking Title VII Litigation

/in ,

On February 6, 2026, Kitzer Rochel partner Brian Rochel presented at the North Carolina Advocates for Justice (NCAJ) 2026 Employment Law CLE, a full-day program bringing together plaintiff-side employment attorneys to discuss evolving doctrine and practical litigation strategy.

As part of the broader agenda, Brian co-presented with Sam Kramer on “Reimagining Title VII: Beyond McDonnell Douglas.” The session focused on how employment lawyers can more effectively litigate Title VII discrimination claims without treating the traditional burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green as a rigid formula.

While McDonnell Douglas remains an important evidentiary tool, the presentation emphasized that Title VII ultimately asks a straightforward question: whether an adverse employment action was motivated, at least in part, by a protected characteristic. Courts increasingly evaluate that question based on the totality of the evidence, particularly at the summary judgment stage under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or analogous state rules.

Brian discussed practical strategies for positioning cases for summary judgment and trial, including highlighting direct evidence, leveraging comparator and statistical proof where appropriate, and exposing shifting or inconsistent employer explanations. The session encouraged advocates to present discrimination cases as cohesive, evidence-driven narratives rather than mechanical burden-shifting exercises.

The CLE program also included panels on whistleblower protections, wage theft litigation, mediation strategy, and emerging practice tools, reflecting the continued development of plaintiff-side employment advocacy nationwide.

Brian Rochel Moderates Panel on Using Expert Witnesses

/in , ,

Kitzer Rochel attorney Brian Rochel recently moderated a CLE panel focused on the strategic use of expert witnesses in employment and civil rights litigation—from pre-litigation through trial. The panel offered a practical, end-to-end discussion grounded in real-world litigation and trial experience. The CLE was sponsored by the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (MN-NELA).

The discussion covered early-case considerations, including when and why to consult or retain experts before litigation to shape case theory, damages analysis, and settlement strategy. Panelists also addressed expert practice during discovery, including reports, disclosures, and depositions, as well as effective trial presentation. Topics included introducing experts on the stand, preparing for direct and cross-examination, positioning experts as teachers rather than advocates, using visuals and demonstratives, and critically evaluating defense expert testimony.

Brian moderated a panel featuring an accomplished group of trial lawyers:

  • Jeff Storms of Storms Dworak LLC, a leading civil rights and plaintiff’s attorney.

  • Mary Olszewska, co-founder of Fellowship Law Group and an experienced employment and civil rights litigator.

  • J. Ashwin Madia of Madia Law LLC, a nationally recognized trial lawyer and Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.

The panel reinforced a key takeaway for employment litigators: expert witnesses are not just trial tools. When used strategically and early, they can meaningfully shape case value and litigation outcomes.

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!

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.

Frances Baillon Selected for Minnesota Lawyer’s Power 30 List for Labor & Employment

/in ,

We are proud to announce that Frances Baillon, an attorney at Kitzer Rochel, has been selected for Minnesota Lawyer’s Power 30 list for Labor & Employment.

Frances has built an exceptional reputation as a recognized advocate for those who have been treated unfairly by the illegal practices of employers.

This marks another significant recognition for Frances, who has previously been named to Minnesota Lawyer’s Power 30 list, demonstrating her consistent excellence and ongoing impact in the field of labor and employment law.

At Kitzer Rochel, Frances continues to represent employees who have faced workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, bringing both compassion and tenacity to every case. Her recognition on this year’s Power 30 list underscores our firm’s commitment to providing exceptional legal representation to those who need it most.

Congratulations to Frances on this well-deserved honor.

Phillip Kitzer, Frances Baillon, and Brian Rochel Again Named Super Lawyers; Frances Rated Top 100 and Top 50 Women Lawyers

/in ,

Kitzer Rochel is proud to announce that our attorneys have once again been recognized for their outstanding legal work in Minnesota. Frances Baillon, Phillip Kitzer, and Brian Rochel have each been selected as 2025 Minnesota Super Lawyers for another year.

In addition, Frances Baillon earned special honors by being named to both the lists of Top 50 Women Super Lawyers in Minnesota and Top 100 Minnesota Super Lawyers for another year.

These honors reflect not only the individual excellence of our attorneys but also the collective strength of our firm. Super Lawyers is a nationally respected rating service that annually recognizes top attorneys through a rigorous selection process. This process includes nominations from peers, independent research, and evaluations by a blue-ribbon panel of attorneys. Being named to the Super Lawyers list is a prestigious recognition of consistent professional achievement, ethical standards, and peer recognition.

We are incredibly grateful to our clients, peers, and the broader legal community for their continued trust and support. At Kitzer Rochel, we remain deeply committed to providing the highest quality legal advocacy, driven by integrity, expertise, and compassion. We look forward to another year of dedicated service to our clients and community.