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.
Articles About Minnesota Labor and Employment Law.
Substantially True Statements, Opinions about Person’s Work not Defamatory, Minnesota Supreme Court Rules
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.
Minnesota Court of Appeals Clarifies What Constitutes Sexual Harassment under Minnesota Law
Explaining that whether sexual harassment occurred is a legal determination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s dismissal of three employees’ suit for hostile work environment against their employers. Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., No. A11-2178 (Minn. Ct. App. July 23, 2012).
Minnesota High Court Rejects Verdict against University Coach for Negligent Misrepresentation in Hiring
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.
Minnesota Court Clarifies Agricultural Exemption under Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act
Unlike the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, an exemption under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA) for agricultural workers does not apply to workers who are paid on an hourly basis, according to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In re Labor Law Violation of Daley Farm of Lewiston, No. 11-1900-19544-2 (Minn. Ct. App. July 9, 2012).
Extension of Leave under Minnesota Law Did Not Also Extend Worker’s Reinstatement Rights
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.
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.