Articles Discussing General Issues In Minnesota Labor & Employment Law.

On May 24, 2013, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a bill that the plaintiff’s bar is likely to argue expands the scope of whistleblower protections for both public and private sector employees under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”). The bill, originally touted as a narrow expansion of protection afforded to certain state employees, adds new statutory definitions that apply to private employers as well.

Effective January 1, 2014, recent amendments to Minnesota law will restrict the timing of pre-employment inquiries by most private employers into a candidate’s criminal past. Employers who are not exempted from the law may not (1) inquire into or consider or require disclosure of criminal record information until the applicant has been selected for an interview or, if there is not an interview, until a conditional job offer of employment has been extended to the applicant, and (2) use any form of employment application that seeks such criminal record information.

A new law signed by Governor Mark Dayton will significantly change how Minnesota employers gather and use information about job applicants’ criminal history. The new “ban the box” law, referring to the criminal history check-off box found on many employment applications, will prohibit private employers from asking about or considering an applicant’s criminal record or criminal history until after selecting the applicant for an interview or, if there is no interview, making a conditional offer of employment. The new law, which goes into effect January 1, 2014, will not apply to employers who have a statutory duty to conduct a criminal history background investigation or otherwise consider an applicant’s criminal history during the hiring process.

Providing needed guidance on workplace defamation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has clarified that both “minor inaccuracies of expression” and statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false are not defamatory as a matter of Minnesota common law. McKee v. Laurion, No. A11-1154 (Jan. 30, 2013). Until now, Minnesota defamation law has been unclear in distinguishing between assertions of fact and opinion, as well as statements that are arguably, technically false but substantially true. Employers often are targets of defamation lawsuits and should be careful when documenting employee performance or reasons for termination in a way that could be considered defamatory.

nding five years of contentious litigation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has reversed a million-dollar jury verdict for negligent misrepresentation against the head coach of the University of Minnesota (“U of M”) Men’s Basketball Team for offering an assistant coaching job to a former assistant coach only later to withdraw the offer. The University withdrew the offer after discovering the candidate’s prior recruiting violations at the University. Williams v. Smith, et al., Nos. A10-1802 and A11-0567 (Minn. Aug. 8, 2012). This decision clarifies and narrows the scope of negligent misrepresentation claims in job offer and hiring situations for both public and private employers in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Parenting Leave Act does not provide that “an extension of leave also extends the right to reinstatement,” the Minnesota high court has held. Hansen v. Robert Half Int’l, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 212 (May 30, 2012). Therefore, the employer did not violate the MPLA by failing to reinstate its employee to her position or a comparable position after her maternity leave, the Supreme Court ruled. In addition, the Court rejected the employee’s claim that she was retaliated against for taking maternity leave, in violation of the MPLA; rather, her position was eliminated as a result of a bona fide reduction-in-force. Finally, the Court ruled the employee failed to establish her termination was because of her sex, in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all claims.

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.