Minnesota Supreme Court Expands Sexual Harassment Cause of Action under State Law
Executive Summary: Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded for the first time that a cause of action exists under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for a hostile work environment based on sex without evidence that the alleged conduct was also sexual in nature. This holding in LaMont v. Independent School District #728 therefore brings Minnesota state law on sexual harassment in line with its federal counterpart despite the differences in the language between the relevant statutes. Compare Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subd. 43 (defining sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact or communication of a sexual nature."), with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (generally prohibiting sex discrimination).
The Minnesota Legislature Contemplates Protecting Employee and Applicant Facebook Passwords From Employers.
Maybe you are all tired of hearing about the legality of asking for an applicant’s Facebook password – it’s been all over the news recently, and I wrote about it last week. (Are You Prying Into Applicant’s Private Space? The Questionable Practice of Asking Applicants For Passwords or Access to Private Social Networks)
No Restraining Order Against Uncle for Posting Family Photos with “Mean, Disrespectful Comments†on Facebook
We are happy to share with you a great article written by our colleague, Carrie Rosenberry. Carrie is an attorney with Fredrikson & Byron’s Advertising, Marketing & Trademark, the Internet, Technology & E-Commerce, and Intellectual Property groups. Her article, No Restraining Order Against Uncle for Posting Family Photos with “Mean, Disrespectful Comments†on Facebook, provides insight into how the Minnesota courts will react to individals seeking legal protection against Facebook comments they personally find offensive. It is interesting to note that the plaintiff also raised privacy concerns about the Facebook posts to the Court of Appeals. However, it appears he failed to raise these concerns to the district court, so the Court of Appeals refused to address them. Too bad – it would have been interesting to hear the Court’s analysis of this issue. For that, we will have to wait for another day.
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 employee’s pay more than 20 years ago, but also for $52,753 of the child support recipient’s 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 Dep’t 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.
