Tag Archive for: title vii

Understanding the Rights and Legal Protections for Pregnant Employees: A Guide for Minnesota Workers

/in ,

Pregnancy can be both an exciting and challenging time, especially when balancing work responsibilities with the needs of growing your family. As a pregnant employee, it’s important to know that both Minnesota and federal laws offer you a range of rights and protections in the workplace. In this blog post, we’ll outline these rights, explain how they apply, and highlight what steps you can take if you believe your rights have been violated.

Federal Protections for Pregnant Employees

At the federal level, three key laws protect pregnant employees:

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA):

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Under the PDA:

  • Equal Treatment: Employers must treat pregnancy-related conditions in the same way they treat other temporary disabilities. For example, if your employer offers light-duty assignments to employees with injuries, they must offer similar accommodations to pregnant employees.
  • Hiring and Promotions: Employers cannot refuse to hire or promote you because you are pregnant, as long as you are able to perform the essential functions of the job.
  • Job Security: You cannot be fired, demoted, or forced to take leave just because you are pregnant.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) applies to employers with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. It provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including:

  • The birth of a child and caring for the newborn
  • A serious health condition that makes you unable to perform your job functions

To be eligible for FMLA, you must have worked for your employer for at least 12 months and have clocked at least 1,250 hours of service during that period. While FMLA leave is unpaid, it ensures that your job (or an equivalent position) will be available when you return.

Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (PWFA):

The Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (PWFA), which went into effect on June 27, 2023, requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers and those with conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. This federal law focuses specifically on workplace accommodations, similar to those provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the PWFA:

  • Reasonable Accommodations: Employers must provide accommodations for pregnant workers unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the business. Examples include modifying work schedules, providing light-duty assignments, allowing additional breaks, and offering seating options.
  • Interactive Process: Employers are required to engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine the most appropriate accommodations.
  • Prohibition of Retaliation: Employers cannot retaliate against employees who request accommodations or exercise their rights under the PWFA.

The PWFA provides important protections that go beyond what the PDA and FMLA offer by explicitly requiring accommodations for pregnant workers to ensure they can perform their jobs safely and effectively.

Minnesota-Specific Protections for Pregnant Employees

Minnesota goes a step further than federal law, offering additional rights to pregnant employees under state law:

Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA):

The MHRA prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy and applies to employers with one or more employees. This law provides similar protections to the federal PDA, making it illegal to treat an employee or job applicant unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions.

Minnesota Pregnancy and Parenting Leave Act (MPPLA):

The MPPLA is similar to the federal FMLA, but is unique to Minnesota and has broader protections regarding pregnancy and parenting leave. This law applies to all employers, regardless of how many employees work there. So even if an employer only has one employee the MPPLA applies. And the right to leave begins immediately upon hire. Unlike the FMLA, a Minnesota employee is not required to work for an employer for 12 months in order to qualify for MPPLA leave.

Note that MPPLA leave is subject to some important limitations:

  • The leave must be taken within 12 months of the birth or adoption.
  • Employees must request the leave from their employer.
  • Employees can choose when the leave will begin.
  • Employers can adopt reasonable policies about when requests for leave must be made.

Importantly, an employer may not deduct any time used for prenatal care from the 12 weeks of protected leave.

Pregnancy Accommodations under Minnesota Law:

Starting in 2023, Minnesota law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees, even if they do not request them. Some examples of accommodations include:

  • More frequent restroom breaks
  • Food and water breaks
  • Seating arrangements
  • Limits on lifting, moving, or similar physical restrictions

These accommodations must be granted unless the employer can demonstrate that they would cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business. Unlike under federal law, Minnesota employers cannot require a doctor’s note to provide these basic accommodations.

What to Do if You Experience Pregnancy Discrimination

If you believe that your rights as a pregnant employee or employee seeking parental leave have been violated, consider the following steps:

  1. Document Everything As Best You Can: Keep a detailed record of all discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, and the individuals involved.
  2. Speak to HR: Report your concerns to your employer’s Human Resources department. They may not be aware of the issue and might take corrective action once informed.
  3. File a Complaint: If the issue is not resolved internally, you may be able to file a formal complaint directly with your employer. Or you may be able to file a charge with either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under federal law or the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) under state law.
  4. Consult with an Attorney: An experienced employment law attorney can help you understand your rights, guide you through the complaint process, and represent you in legal proceedings if necessary.

Conclusion

Both federal and Minnesota laws offer pregnant employees robust protections against discrimination, ensuring that you can continue to work and provide for your family without fear of unfair treatment. Understanding these rights can help you advocate for yourself in the workplace and take action if your employer fails to meet their legal obligations.

If you believe your rights have been violated or you have questions about pregnancy discrimination, our experienced employment law team is here to help. Contact us today for a consultation and let us fight for the fair treatment you deserve.

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.

 

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.

SCOTUS Grants Writ of Certiorari for Three LGBT Employment Discrimination Cases

/in

On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari in three LGBT employment cases. Each of the three cases addresses whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers protection against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Plaintiff, Gerald Lynn Bostock, claims his sexual orientation as a gay man was the reason for his termination from Clayton County as a Child Welfare Services Coordinator. The District Court ruled that he had no viable claim because Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Eleventh Circuit established the precedent that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not a form of sex discrimination protected by Title VII.

In contrast, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., that sexual orientation is protected under Title VII, because the Supreme Court has ruled previously that gender stereotyping violates the statute. The Second Circuit held discrimination based on sexual orientation was an “actionable subset of sex discrimination” because you cannot address sexual orientation without consideration of the individual’s gender and the related stereotypes.

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, et al., the Sixth Circuit also held that Title VII protects employees who are transgender. Employee Aimee Stephens was terminated when she informed her coworkers that “she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female and intended to dress in appropriate business attire to work as a woman.” Two weeks later she was terminated because the funeral home owner thought he would be “violating God’s commands” by allowing Stephens to dress in women’s clothing. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit on Stephens’ behalf, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for the EEOC and Stephens.

EEOC Reaches Significant Settlement in Prayer Accommodation Case

/in ,

On August 6, 2017, the EEOC reached a significant settlement in a case against Electrolux. The case involved claims by a group of Muslim employees who were denied religious accommodations.

The employees had asked the company to allow them to break their fast shortly after sunset in accordance with the observation of Ramadan, the Islamic holiday that involves fasting from dawn to sunset every day for approximately one month annually. Electrolux changed its break time policies and interfered with the employees’ religious practices.

The claims were brought by the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommodations to employees if it does not cause any undue hardship to the employer. Minnesota law provides similar protections as well.

The settlement is a significant victory for all parties. It allows the Muslim employees to practice their sincere religious beliefs, while not causing an undue burden on the employer. Terms of the settlement include:

  • Electrolux will adjust break time schedule during the entire month of Ramadan to allow Muslim employees to pray and break their Ramadan fasts shortly after sunset in a safe environment, away from the production area.
  • Electrolux will also provide training to its employees at the St. Cloud facility on the requirements related to religious accommodation under federal law.
  • The company also agreed to report to the EEOC all future requests it receives for religious accommodations and how the requests were addressed by the company.

Ramadan began on August 9, shortly after the parties’ settlement in this case.

Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel handles all types of employment law claims, including religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. Our firm has represented Muslim employees on a group basis for failing to provide reasonable religious accommodations.

If you have questions about your right to religious accommodations, contact Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel today.