Tag Archive for: human rights

Employment Protections in Minnesota: What Employees Need to Know in a Changing Landscape

/in ,

The Trump Administration has been direct in its efforts to combat decades-old nondiscrimination standards. But while its actions have created a lot of (justifiable) coverage and outrage, it is important to understand the vast majority of legal protections in employment remain untouched.

Along with nationwide legal actions challenging the recent orders and changes, there are still laws—especially in Minnesota—that protect workers.

  1. Antidiscrimination Protection

Federal contractors have long been required to provide equal employment opportunity. A recent executive order removed that requirement and provided that the Department of Labor’s contract office would no longer promote diversity or affirmative action.

But this does not remove equal employment protection for employees—it only removes that particular requirement for companies to contract with the federal government. The protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) are not changed, and all employers in Minnesota must follow them. It is still unlawful to discriminate based on race, religion, disability, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity in Minnesota.

  1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Despite some shake-ups within the EEOC, including the dismissal of two of its three Democratic Commissioners, its essential work remains. The EEOC cannot currently issue new rules or policies, because it no longer has enough Commissioners to vote on them.

But you can still file an EEOC charge. Even if the EEOC does not pursue your case, you can still request a Notice of Right to Sue and pursue your claim in court. The same rights in Title VII and the MHRA still protect you, and are being enforced not only by the EEOC but also the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and the courts. You can also file a charge with the MDHR if you have experienced discrimination for virtually the same reasons as with the EEOC.

  1. LGBTQ+ Protection

LGBTQ+ rights are involved in the actions above as well as two other executive orders. The first order specifies that the United States only recognizes two sexes, and explains how its policies will define and apply “male” and “female.” It requires federal agencies and employees to use the approved terminology in all communications and remove any references to gender or gender identity. For example, any government form to be filled out must list sex as male or female, and cannot ask about a person’s gender identity or include any other options, such as non-binary. The second order is about transgender people participating in sports, and applies sex-based distinctions that disregard gender identity.

But these orders have been challenged in court for violating the U.S. Constitution, among other things. And states still have protections that exceed federal protections. Minnesota, in particular, has protections for LGBTQ+ people that remain unchanged by these orders, notably the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Minnesota’s Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has recently expressed that the executive order does not override the MHRA.

Even with the federal policy changes in civil rights protection and enforcement, Minnesota (among other states) has strong laws that still protect your rights. The MHRA is among the most protective laws in the country, and it is unchanged.

Conclusion

If you have questions about employment law in the wake of the Trump administration’s efforts to change legal norms, contact us today to learn more.

Minnesota Supreme Court extends statute of limitations for some claims under Minnesota Human Rights Act

/in ,

On April 12, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis, 2017 Minn. LEXIS 195 (Apr. 12, 2017), that may extend the statute of limitations for some employment claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Scott Peterson was a Minneapolis Police Officer for several years. In 2011, he was transferred to a new police unit, and he complained that the transfer was because of age discrimination. Rather than file a charge of discrimination, Officer Peterson filed a complaint through the City’s internal investigative wing. Over a year later, the City concluded that Officer Peterson had not been discriminated against.

Officer Peterson then sued the City. The City responded by arguing that it was too late to sue—there is a one-year statute of limitations for claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and Peterson was more than a year after his transfer. But, as the Minnesota Supreme Court recognized, that one-year statute of limitations is “tolled” or suspended during the time that the parties are engaged in their own dispute resolution process. So for Officer Peterson, the time that the City was investigating his discrimination claim did not count against his statute of limitations. That meant that even though Officer Peterson sued more  than a year after his transfer, his claim was still timely.

Before seeking a lawyer, many employees will attempt to work out their employment issues directly with their employers. With the Peterson case, it now seems this time may not count toward the statute of limitations for claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. However, because many employment claims have very short statutes of limitations, you should contact a lawyer as soon as possible if you have an employment concern or a workplace dispute.