Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 15, 2018
In October and November of this past year, we wrote about two Minnesota court decisions – Mid-America Business Systems v. Sanderson et al., Case No. 17-3876 (Dist. Minn. Oct. 6, 2017) and Safety Center, Inc. v. Stier, Case No. A17-0360 (Minn. App., Nov. 6, 2017) — that addressed the adequacy of consideration that is provided in exchange for entry into a non-compete agreement.
Ogletree Deakins • December 21, 2017
Minimum wage rates for most employees in Minnesota will increase on January 1, 2018. Both the state of Minnesota's automatic minimum wage hike and a new minimum wage ordinance for workers in the city of Minneapolis will take effect on that date.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • November 30, 2017
Last month, this Blog highlighted a Minnesota decision evaluating the consideration required for non-compete agreements entered into after the commencement of employment. As that decision held, such agreements must be supported by valuable consideration over and above continued employment.
Ogletree Deakins • October 30, 2017
On October 11, 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in Burt v. Rackner, Inc., No. A15-2045 (October 11, 2017), that may have effectively abrogated the long-standing rule of “employment at will” in Minnesota. By creating a claim for retaliation under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA)—a statute which does not contain an express retaliation provision—a 5-2 majority of the court held that other provisions of the MFLSA could be read to permit a restaurant employee who refused to share tips in apparent violation of the law (and who was later discharged) to sue for wrongful discharge under the statute. The court’s majority articulated a new and expansive principle for finding legislative intent to allow a claim based on a statute.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 17, 2017
The Minnesota federal district court recently refused to enforce a non-compete agreement, in part, because the employer failed to establish that the agreement was supported by valuable consideration.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 10, 2017
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on August 9, 2017 in Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, finding that the 2013 amendments to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”) abrogated the requirement that a report be made for the purpose of exposing an illegality in order to be protected under the statute. With the court’s narrow ruling in Friedlander, the purpose of an employee’s report is irrelevant to the determination of whether the report can be the basis of a whistleblower claim. In other words, an employee may not need to have been attempting to expose an employer’s suspected illegal conduct in order to bring a retaliation claim in Minnesota
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 10, 2017
Most businesses entering into contracts in excess of $500,000 with the state of Minnesota are required to obtain an Equal Pay Certificate from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) as a condition of doing business with the state. The required elements of an application for certification are set forth in section 363A.44 of the Minnesota statutes.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 30, 2017
All employers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, must pay their employees at least $15.00 an hour by July 1, 2024, under a minimum wage ordinance approved by the Minneapolis City Council on June 30, 2017. The ordinance applies to anyone who works in Minneapolis for any amount of time.
Ogletree Deakins • July 21, 2017
On May 23, 2017, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed into law amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) that are intended to curb the flood of “drive-by” disability access lawsuits in the state.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 30, 2017
A Michigan appellate court denied an attempt by an employee to receive a severance jackpot based on a drafting mistake made by his former employer. Notwithstanding the employee’s entitlement, based on the terms of his separation agreement, to receive approximately $81 thousand dollars per week for 34 weeks, the State of Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision to reform the contract, resulting in the employee receiving a total of $81 thousand over 34 weeks. The case highlights, among other things, the importance of proofreading.