"I'm being harassed at work! Do I have a case?" This is another question I hear a lot from potential clients, much like "Can I sue for wrongful termination?" More often than not, the "harassment" is by a boss who is just being a jerk, and I have to tell the potential client that there is no law against being a jerk.
Swenson Lervick is happy to have helped bring the Minnesota Supreme Court to Alexandria. The Court was in town on October 4 and 5 as a part of its outreach program designed to not only give students a close look at how the Court works but also to give them a chance to observe the oral arguments in a real case (State of Minnesota v. Heinonen).
Please join us for the 14h Annual West Central Minnesota Employment Law Update at the Alexandria Technical and Community College on Wednesday, June 7, 2017!
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week in Peterson v. City of Minneapolis that the one-year statute of limitations set by the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA") is suspended while the employer and employee voluntarily engage in an employer's internal dispute resolution process. As a result, employees will now in many cases have additional time to pursue claims under the MHRA.
Employers can be held liable for injuries suffered by employees who are assaulted by their co-workers, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reiterated in a recent case. The decision highlights the importance of reducing the risk of workplace violence by conducting background checks of potential employees and enforcing anti-violence policies with existing employees.
Though it's been done since the beginning of time, breastfeeding in public made waves this summer when our local paper asked for comments from its readers (see It's Your Turn: Facebook readers share thoughts on breastfeeding, Echo Press Sept. 4, 2015; A mom's dilemma, Echo Press Sept. 4, 2015).
A recently settled Minnesota Department of Human Rights charge against Jack Link's Beef Jerky emphasizes the importance of follow-through when responding to sexual harassment allegations.
By now, you've probably read or heard about Target Corporation's agreement to pay $2.8 million to settle an EEOC discrimination charge. Unlike a "disparate treatment" case where the plaintiffs claim that an employer's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent, this was a "disparate impact" case where the EEOC alleged that screening tests used by Target disproportionately excluded applicants on the basis of race and gender and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking, seeking help is sometimes the most difficult first step toward safety and justice. Adding to the struggle is the reality that taking that step sometimes means committing time during the workday to seek help. Consequently, the fear of missing work has often been an obstacle to reporting those crimes, participating in the legal process, or otherwise seeking or providing help.