Total Articles: 9
New Minnesota Statute Limits Use of Criminal History Information in Civil Claims Against Employers.
A new Minnesota statute may help private employers defend against certain civil claims arising from the harmful conduct of an employee or former employee.
New Reference Law.
Employee references have been a headache for employers due to concerns over defamation challenges. The legislature recently passed a statute that provides some measure of reprieve.
Ready, Fire, Aim: Minnesota's New Concealed Gun Law.
The Minnesota Citizen's Personal Protection Act of 2003 (commonly referred to as the "Conceal and Carry Law") became law on May 28, 2003. Individuals with a permit to carry a "firearm" now are permitted to carry a weapon to work or while engaged in work, unless the employer restricts that right.
Companies Need To Act Now To Prohibit Guns On Their Premises.
The Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act of 2003 (“the Act”), commonly referred to as “the conceal-carry law,” takes effect on May 28, 2003.
Responding to Requests for Personnel Documents.
Employers typically receive three types of requests for personnel documents: 1. a request from a current or former employee for a copy of his or her personnel file; 2. a subpoena demanding production of specified documents for a current or former employee; or 3. a letter from an attorney requesting documents for a current or former employee. Employers should know and follow the applicable legal requirements and good business practices when responding to these requests.
drug and alcohol testing: is your policy up-to-date?
Regardless of the reason for drug and/or alcohol testing, employers must ensure that they comply with the applicable federal and state laws or risk substantial monetary penalties.
background checks may require advance disclosure.
Discusses risks associated in conducting background check without making required disclosures under the Federal Credit Report Act (FCRA) and the Minnesota Access to Consumer Reports Act (MACRA).
arbitrating discrimination claims in minnesota: a bump in the road.
Discusses Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the "exclusivity" provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Section 363.11)precludes arbitration of pending human rights act claim.
arbitrating discrimination claims: has its time come.
Discusses Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals required submission of plaintiff's discrimination claim to arbitration. [Appears that the case was subsequently reversed. See Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A., C7-98-2251 (Minn. March 16, 2000) (plaintiff entitled to a stay of arbitration because section 363.11 of the human rights act precludes arbitration of pending human rights act claim).
