Tag Archive for: employment law

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)).

Can My Employer Fire Me if I Fail a Drug Test?

/in

Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (DATWA) governs drug testing for employees. Employers may not require drug or alcohol testing unless such testing is completed under a written drug and alcohol testing policy that contains certain information required by law.[1] The testing must also be completed only by a qualified laboratory.[2]

If your employer requires you to take an initial drug test and you test positive, DATWA prohibits your employer from firing you without first providing you with the opportunity to participate in counseling or rehabilitation.[3] Your employer is also required to provide you with written documentation of your test results.[4]

If your employer has not followed these legal requirements, or you have questions about drug testing at work, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

 

[1] Minn. Stat. § 181.951, subd. 1.

[2] Minn. Stat. § 181.953, subd. 1.

[3] Minn. Stat. § 181.953, subd. 10(b)(1); Hanson v. City of Hawley, No. A05-1940, WL 1148125, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. May 2, 2006).

[4] Minn. Stat. § 181.953, subd. 7.

Can My Employer Fire Me for Reporting Violations of Law?

/in

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA) protects employees who report illegal activity, or “blow the whistle,” at work. The MWA prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining, threatening, discriminating against, or penalizing an employee in relation to compensation or the terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because an employee reported illegal activity.[1]

You are protected under the MWA if you make a good faith report of a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any state or federal law, common law, or rule.[2] These categories are very broad and protect a wide range of conduct. You are protected whether you make this report to your employer or any governmental body or law enforcement official.[3] In addition and separately, you have the same protections if a public body or office requests that you participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.[4]

Whistleblower protections include, for example, reporting violations relating to COVID-19, state or federal workplace safety rules, criminal violations, securities laws, and virtually any other type of legal rule, law or regulation.

If you have questions about whistleblower rights contact us. Or if believe that your employer has terminated your employment or treated you unfairly after you reported illegal activity, contact us. Our experienced Minnesota employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

 

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

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

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

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

Can I Request My Personnel Record from My Employer?

/in

Under Minnesota law, if an employee makes a written request to their employer, the employer must provide the employee with the opportunity to review their personnel record.[1] However, the employer is not required to provide an opportunity for the employee to review their personnel record if the employee has reviewed their file within the previous six months.[2] After an employee no longer works for the employer, the employee may review their personnel record once per year for as long as the record is kept.[3]

For current employees, if an employee makes a written request, the employer must allow the employee to view the file within seven days for records kept in Minnesota, or fourteen days for records kept outside of Minnesota.[4] For current employees, the personnel record (or an accurate copy) must be made available to the employee during the employer’s normal operating hours.[5] The employer is allowed to be present (or have a representative present) during review of the personnel file.[6] After review, the employee can make a written request for a copy of the record, and the employer is required to provide a copy.[7]

For former employees, the employer must provide a copy once the former employee makes a written request, but need not allow review of the personnel file itself.[8] The employer is not permitted to charge a copy fee for the copy of the personnel file.[9] The employer must provide a copy of the file to the employee within seven days (for files kept in Minnesota) or fourteen days (for files kept outside the state).

If you have questions about this process, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss the process and help you determine your next steps.

[1] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 1.

[2] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 1.

[3] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 1.

[4] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(a).

[5] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(b).

[6] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(b).

[7] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(b).

[8] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(c).

[9] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 2(d).

[10] Minn. Stat. § 181.961, subd. 3.

President Biden’s New Vaccine Mandate—What It Means for Employees

/in

On Thursday, September 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order with new vaccine mandates covering millions of employees. Here are several ways the new regulations impact employees.

Who Is Covered?

  • All federal employees;
  • All federal contractors;
  • All employees of employers who employee 100 or more employees;
  • Nearly all employees who are healthcare workers at health facilities (only those that receive Medicare or Medicaid);
  • Many teachers (those working in Head Start and in schools run by the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs).

Some estimates are that this will impact more than 80 million workers in the U.S. and at least 1.4 million workers in Minnesota.

What Is Required?

  • Covered employees will be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, or else be tested at least once per week.
  • Is it not clear when exactly all the mandates all go into effect. However, Minnesota OSHA has 30 days from September 9 to issue rules that will go into effect for Minnesota workers.
  • Federal employees have 75 days to be vaccinated.

What If My Employer Does Not Require Vaccination?

  • Covered employers are required to follow the federal mandates as well as related state regulations, such as those imposed by Minnesota OSHA. Any employer that fails to do so violates the law.
  • Employees can and should report violations of workplace safety laws, including OSHA and Minnesota OSHA regulations. Employers cannot retaliate against employees who report violations of law, including COVID-19 safety regulations.

What If I Choose Not to Get Vaccinated or Be Tested?

  • This is a common—and hotly debated—question. While there are several exceptions, generally, employers are legally allowed to terminate employees who choose to not be vaccinated.
  • The exceptions to vaccine mandate include on the basis of disability and for those seeking religious exceptions. The EEOC is a great resource for the details of those exemptions. However, it is important to highlight that the standards for seeking a medical or religious exemption are high.

Can my Employer Force Me to Break the Law?

/in

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA) protects employees who report illegal activity, or “blow the whistle,” at work. The MWA is also designed to deter employers from retaliating against employees who follow the law. The MWA prohibits employers from discharging, disciplining, threatening, discriminating against, or penalizing an employee because an employee refused to break the law, or reported a violation of law.

For protection under the MWA, the employee must have an objective basis in fact to believe that an employer’s order violates a state law or federal law, rule, or regulation. An employee should also inform their employer that that they are refusing the employer’s order because they believe that it violates the law.

If you believe that your employer has terminated your employment or treated you differently after you refused to break the law, contact us. Our experienced employment law attorneys would be happy to discuss your case and help you understand your legal rights and options.

What is a reasonable accommodation for a disability and how can I request it from my employer?

/in

Working with a disability does not have to be stressful. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. A qualified individual with a disability is someone who fulfills what the position is requiring of an applicant, for example: skill set, experience, education, and any other job-related requirement. It is someone who can perform the basic duties the position entails either with or without reasonable accommodation/s.

All government agencies, and most employers, are required by law to provide reasonable accommodations to both qualified applicants and employees. The only time they would be unable to provide reasonable accommodation is if doing so would pose a direct threat or cause an undue hardship. Otherwise, employers must provide reasonable accommodations (adjustment or alteration), to provide applicants/employees an equal opportunity to compete for a job, equal access to benefits and privileges of employment, and/or to be able to perform the essential functions of the job.

Reasonable accommodations may look like the following:

  • Moving to a different office space;
  • Granting breaks or providing leave;
  • Providing accessible parking;
  • Providing telework or working remotely (including working from home);
  • Providing materials in alternative formats like large print or Braille; or
  • Changing when or how job duties are performed.

Under state and federal laws, individuals with disabilities have a right to request reasonable accommodations that will allow individuals to perform all the essential functions of the job. A job should not have to be burdensome to an individual with disabilities and reasonable accommodations should be request if needed. An employer is not allowed to retaliate against an employee who asks for reasonable accommodation, or who receives an accommodation.

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

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds that Employment Handbooks May Create Contractual Rights, Even When They Claim Not To

/in

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of employees. In an important ruling, the Court held that employers who use blanket language stating that an employee handbook is “not a contract” do not necessarily prevent employees from bringing valid claims for breaching a contract. The case, Donald Hall v. City of Plainview, reiterated prior cases holding that employee handbooks can, in certain cases, be legally enforceable.

In Hall, the City of Plainview promised to pay its employees accrued paid time off (PTO) upon separation from employment. But the City refused to pay Hall his PTO upon his separation. The City claimed that a blanket statement in its handbook stating that no provision was intended to create a contract was enough for it to avoid responsibility for paying the PTO. But the problem, the Court held, was that the company promised to pay the PTO in one part of the handbook, while also vaguely and generally claiming that it did not have to follow any of the promises it made in the handbook. The Court held that such duplicitous language is ambiguous and that, as a result, a jury had to decide what the contract actually meant.

The takeaway for Minnesota employees is that when even if an employee handbook contains a statement that it does not create a contract, courts may still find that the terms of the contract are enforceable. It is a good idea to consult with an experienced employment attorney in these situations.

Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel of Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP participated in the case on behalf of Minnesota NELA, who appeared as amicus curiae arguing in favor of employees.

If you would like to learn more, or if you have any employment law question, contact Kitzer & Rochel today.

Brian Rochel to Present on COVID-19 Employment Law Issues

/in

On October 22, 2020, Brian Rochel will present “Employment Trends from the COVID-19 Battlefield,” along with Teresa Thompson of Fredrikson & Byron. Brian and Teresa will share their views as an employee-side lawyer and employer-side lawyer, respectively, on recent and upcoming topics related to COVID-19.

Click here to learn more and to register for the Webinar.

Brian Rochel Interviewed Regarding COVID-19 and Employment Law

/in ,

On July 6, 2020, TKKR partner Brian Rochel was featured in an interview by Minnesota Public Radio about current legal protections employees have in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. You can read the article here.

Brian discussed the real fear many employees have that if they raise concerns related to COVID-19, they will be retaliated against, by being fired and forced to search for employment during the current difficult economic time. He also discussed how the legal protections related to COVID-19 are uncharted territory for Minnesota courts and the importance of discussing any potential issues with an employment lawyer.

Under Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s Peacetime Emergency Executive Order 20-54, employees are, among other things, protected against retaliation for reporting COVID-19 workplace concerns or refusing to work in conditions that they, in good faith, believe could potentially expose them to COVID-19.

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.