Tag Archive for: Minnesota Human Rights Act

Protecting Workers’ Rights: Understanding Employment Retaliation Laws in Minnesota

/in , ,

In the dynamic landscape of employment, workers’ rights and protections stand as pillars of ensuring fair treatment and equitable conditions in the workplace. Among these safeguards is the prohibition of employment retaliation, a crucial aspect of labor laws designed to shield employees from adverse actions by employers in response to protected activities. In the state of Minnesota, stringent laws are in place to safeguard workers against retaliation, fostering a culture of fairness and respect in the workplace.

Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws are enshrined in various statutes and regulations, primarily under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). These laws serve as powerful tools in protecting employees who exercise their rights or report unlawful conduct within their workplace.

The MHRA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discrimination claims. This includes actions such as filing a complaint, providing testimony, or assisting others in asserting their rights under the MHRA. The law covers various forms of retaliation, including termination, demotion, harassment, or any adverse employment action taken in response to protected activities.

Similarly, the MWA shields employees from retaliation when they report suspected violations of law or public policy by their employers. Protected disclosures under the MWA include reporting suspected or planned unlawful conduct, safety violations, fraud, or other illegal activities. Employers are prohibited from taking retaliatory measures against employees who make such reports, ensuring that whistleblowers can come forward without fear of repercussions. Protections against retaliation are very broad.

It’s important to note that Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws extend protection to a wide range of workers, including full-time, part-time, and temporary employees, as well as independent contractors in certain circumstances. Additionally, individuals who assist or support employees in exercising their rights are also safeguarded against retaliation under these and similar laws.

Employment retaliation can have serious consequences, not only for the individuals directly affected but also for the overall workplace environment and morale. By upholding strong protections against retaliation, Minnesota aims to foster a culture where employees feel empowered to assert their rights and speak out against injustices without fear of reprisal.

Employers found in violation of Minnesota’s employment retaliation laws may face significant legal consequences, including monetary damages, reinstatement of employment, and injunctive relief. Moreover, repeated violations can tarnish a company’s reputation and erode trust between employers and employees.

If you have additional questions about employment retaliation in Minnesota, or feel that you may have experienced retaliation, 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 . . .”).

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.

 

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.

Minnesota Supreme Court Issues Landmark Disability Discrimination Decision

/in ,

On February 27, 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a major decision in favor of employees. The case, Daniel v. Minneapolis, addressed whether an employee who is disabled as a result of a work injury can bring a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). For decades, such employees were prohibited from filing MHRA claims because of a prior supreme court ruling in Karst v. FC Hayer Co., Inc. (issued in 1989). Under Karst, disabled employees were prohibited from bringing human rights claims because they were preempted by Minnesota’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Consequently, any employee who experienced disability discrimination resulting from a work injury was left without any recourse to remedy the discrimination.

This led to absurd results. For example, if an employee suffered a disabling injury outside of work, she would be protected from discrimination under the MHRA. But if that same employee became disabled at work, she would have no protection from discrimination. Her employer would be free to fire her because of her disability and nothing more. This was bad policy for Minnesotans and was out of step with the rest of the country, with nearly every state rejecting similar interpretations of their own state laws.

In Daniel, the Minnesota Supreme Court corrected that problem and overruled the Karst decision. Writing for a 5-2 majority, Justice Margaret Chutich wrote, “Unlike the workers’ compensation act, the human rights act is a civil rights law that protects employees from unlawful employment discrimination.” The Court recognized the fundamental difference between the Workers’ Compensation Act, which is designed to remedy work injuries, and the MHRA, which is designed to protect disabled employees from discrimination. Because of these differences, neither law preempts the other. Instead, workers have rights under both.

Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel lawyers Phillip Kitzer and Brian Rochel wrote on behalf of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association in a “friend of the court” or amicus brief, asking the Supreme Court to overrule the Karst decision. “This marks a great step forward for all employees in Minnesota and corrects a decades-long error in the law,” said Phillip Kitzer. “Employees should not be treated differently and denied equal protection simply because they become disabled as a result of a work injury. That is not consistent with Minnesota’s strong history of protecting and advancing human rights,” added Brian Rochel.

If you have any questions about Daniel v. Minneapolis, disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, or employment law generally, please contact Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel today.

Kitzer & Rochel Defeat Summary Judgment in Federal Court

/in , ,

In Jason Lindner v. Donatelli Bros. of White Bear Lake d/b/a Donatelli’s, Brian Rochel and Phillip Kitzer defeated summary judgment in U.S. District Court. Lindner’s claims involved FMLA interference and retaliation as well as for seeking time off from work related to his disability. After 18 years of employment, Jason Lindner was fired while on FMLA leave stemming from a recently-developed respiratory airway disease (RADs).  The person who decided to terminate Lindner, Trish Appleby, testified that she relied on video footage to disprove that Lindner fell in the parking lot, justifying her decision to terminate him for falsifying a workers’ compensation claim.

The Court held that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Donatelli’s proffered reasons for termination were pretext for retaliation. First, Appleby admitted she was skeptical of the injury even though Lindner’s account of the fall was “pretty much the same” to the account he gave her.  Second, the Court stated that the video was unclear and could reasonably discredit Appleby’s “adamant testimony” that she could “clearly” tell from the tape that he did not fall.  Likewise, Appleby adamantly claimed that Lindner’s doctor’s note did not contain “one objective” indication of injury, yet the doctor’s note did contain indications that Lindner was injured. Third, the Court found that the timing of Appleby’s investigation into the alleged fall could be considered suspicious.  Appleby did not take it upon herself to investigate the injury until after Lindner suffered the RADs injury and requested time off from work.  Fourth, Appleby testified that Lindner’s previous requests for time off constituted “performance problems” that could have led to his termination.  Finally, Appleby did not provide Lindner the same opportunities to remedy alleged behavioral problems that it provided other employees, even those who committed offenses she considered “flagrant.” The Court held, “This evidence of hostility combined with the timing of his termination and the shaky foundation of her professed belief could lead a reasonable jury to discredit Appleby and conclude her decision was in fact motivated by Lindner’s medical leave.”

Likewise, the Court denied Donatelli’s summary judgment motion on Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim.  Although Donatelli’s argued that Lindner “never” made an FMLA request, the Court found that the argument is “clearly contradicted by the record.” Lindner submitted a complete FMLA request for the day before he was terminated, and Donatelli’s was “clearly on notice of his potential need for FMLA leave because Appleby raised the issue with him and sent him FMLA paperwork, which stated he was eligible for leave[]”. Accordingly, the Court held that Lindner’s FMLA entitlement claim could proceed to jury trial along with his retaliation claim under state and federal law.

The full opinion, issued by U.S. Judge Richard J. Kyle, is available here.