Total Articles: 10
Legal Alert: Mandatory Mediation in Minnesota
xecutive Summary: The Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) announced last month that it is requiring mediation for every charge of discrimination filed with the Department. Previously, the MDHR only offered mediation for early resolution when both parties agreed.
Minnesota Court Limits Scope of Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment Claims
Recently, the MinnesotaCourt of Appeals, in Matthews v. Eichorn Motors, Inc. (Minn. App. 2011), limited the application of the “aiding and abetting” provisions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Minn. Stat. §363A.14. In that case, the plaintiff asserted a sexual harassment claim against her employer, the majority owner and the father of the majority owner.
Defamation By Compelled Self-Publication; Was It Compelled?
Twenty-five years ago the Minnesota Supreme Court, in Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 389 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1986) adopted the novel (and still somewhat controversial) doctrine of “defamation by compelled self-publication.” In law school, we were taught that defamation is generally defined as a false statement which is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff and tends to harm the plaintiff’s reputation in the community. Typically, there is no “publication,” when the allegedly false statement is made only to the plaintiff.
Minnesota Tax Bill Contains Several Benefits Provisions
On Monday, March 21, 2011, Governor Dayton signed into law H.F. 79, which conforms Minnesota’s individual income and corporate franchise taxes to most federal tax law changes enacted between March 18, 2010, and December 31, 2010, but only for the 2010 tax year. Among other changes, the tax bill contains the following benefits-related provisions:
$1.9 Million Jury Verdict Awarded on Former Employee's Minnesota State Law Claim.
Last month, a federal jury in St. Paul awarded a former engineer at Seagate Technology $1.9 million after concluding that his former employer violated a rarely used Minnesota Statute that prohibits the use of knowingly false statements to induce someone into employment.
Employer Withholding of Child Support in Minnesota.
Employers collect more than 70 percent of all child support paid in Minnesota. Since employers serve such a critical role in the collection of child support, courts impose significant penalties on employers who do not comply with child support laws. In May 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held an employer liable not only for $235,000 in child support that it failed to withhold from a former employees pay more than 20 years ago, but also for $52,753 of the child support recipients attorneys fees incurred during the lengthy collection process.
Minnesota Court Denies Unemployment Benefits, Says Misrepresentation in Hiring Process is Misconduct.
In good news for employers, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has clarified that employment misconduct includes a misrepresentation made during hiring and affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits. Santillana v. Central Minnesota Council on Aging and Minnesota Dept of Employment and Econ. Dev., No. 23466835-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2010). Under Minnesota law, an employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible from receiving unemployment benefits.
Time Off to Vote No Longer Limited to Election Day Morning
For some time Minnesota law has given employees who are eligible to vote the right to be absent from work to vote. Until this year, this right to be absent applied only to the morning of election day. During the 2010 session, the Minnesota State Legislature amended the voting leave statute to allow an employee to be absent from work at any time during his or her scheduled hours on election day for the time necessary to appear at the employees polling place, cast a ballot, and return to work. Minn. Stat. 204C.04. The statute does not allow an employer to deny an employee time off to vote even if the employee has sufficient time to vote outside of working hours. The statute continues to provide that the absence must be without penalty or deduction from salary or wages, meaning the employer must pay the employee for the time missed. Additionally, an employer may not directly or indirectly refuse, abridge, or interfere with an employees right to paid voting leave. A person who violates this law is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Minnesota Appeals Court Clarifies Distinction Between Independent Contractor and Employee.
On July 20, 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision that clarifies the standard for determining whether certain workers are properly classified as employees or independent contractors. While the Court analyzed this issue under Minnesota law, the factors are generally the same in most states and also under federal law, and courts, agencies, and plaintiffs' lawyers across the country are scrutinizing the issue of contractor vs. employee more than ever before, so the case provides valuable guidance for all employers.
Employee Job Duties Are Relevant to Whether an Employee Has Made a Good Faith Complaint Under Minnesotas Whistleblower Statute.
In a 4-3 decision with a plurality opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesotas whistleblower statute, Minn. Stat. 181.932, does not contain a job duties exception that bars employees who report illegal conduct or suspected illegal conduct as part of their job duties from bringing a claim under the statute. The employees job duties are relevant, however, in determining whether the employee made the report in good faith for the purpose of exposing illegal conduct so that the employees report qualifies as protected activity under the statute. Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., Nos. A07-584, A07-788, Minnesota Supreme Court (June 24, 2010).
