(Minneapolis; March 7, 2019)—Alice James will join Attorney General Keith Ellison and Department of Human Rights (MDHR) Commissioner Rebecca Lucero in suing a plasma collection company for its discriminatory ban on donations by transgender persons.

In 2011, Ms. James began donating plasma at CSL Plasma locations in Minnesota. For nearly four years, CSL refused to acknowledge Ms. James’ gender identity. In 2015, CSL stopped allowing Ms. James to donate plasma, citing a company policy barring transgender persons from making such donations. That policy violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act. In 2016, Ms. James filed a discrimination complaint with the MDHR. That complaint led to the lawsuit filed this week by the MDHR and Attorney General.

Minnesota has long been a leader in rejecting unfounded and overly simplistic notions regarding gender. In 1975, the Minneapolis became the first government in the nation to outlaw gender identity discrimination. In 1993, Minnesota was the first state to do so.

In the 43 years since Minneapolis led the way, our collective understanding of gender has grown substantially, and dozens of states and localities now ban businesses from discriminating simply because a person’s gender differs from the one assigned at birth.

Said Joshua Newville, one of Ms. James’ lawyers: “CSL brazenly ignores these laws and bans all transgender persons from donating plasma purely on account of their transgender status. There is no legitimate justification for such a ban. We look forward to joining this lawsuit and to working with the Attorney General and the Commissioner. We are also grateful for their support.”

Said Ms. James: “I am proud to live in a state where the law demands that people be treated fairly. I hope this case helps to ensure fair treatment for other Minnesotans.”

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights is suing a self-proclaimed “leader in plasma collection” for allegedly discriminating against a transgender woman who was banned from donating because of her gender identity.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is expected to file the lawsuit Thursday on behalf of the department against CSL Plasma Inc., which identifies itself as “one of the world’s largest collectors of human plasma.”

“Obviously, anyone’s gender identity is a core component of who they are, and we want to make sure that the core component of who they are is protected and celebrated,” said Irina Vaynerman, the department’s deputy commissioner of human rights.

CSL Plasma Inc. declined to comment Thursday.
“Since the matter is in litigation, we will have no comment as we have not yet been served with the suit,” the company said in a written statement.

The department is suing in response to a complaint filed by Minneapolis resident Alice James, whose attorney said he expects her to also join the suit as a plaintiff.

“I am proud to live in a state where the law demands that people be treated fairly,” James said in a written statement provided by her attorney. “I hope this case helps to ensure fair treatment for other Minnesotans.”

James would not be speaking with the media about her experience with CSL Plasma, said her attorney, Joshua Newville.

“Although she is very interested in the outcome of this matter and seeing justice done for both herself and others in the state of Minnesota, she doesn’t really want this case focused on her,” Newville said. “She wants this case focused on CSL Plasma and the broader understanding of gender identity.”

James was a regular donor at CSL Plasma for years and relied on it as part of her income until the company told her in 2015 that it did not accept donations from transgender people, Newville said.

“That had a pretty catastrophic impact on her both financially and emotionally,” he said. “That sort of conduct can’t stand, especially in places like Minnesota, and I hope this lawsuit will make that clear.”
According to Newville: James was living in Duluth in 2011 when she began donating plasma at the company’s location there. She identified herself as a woman, but the facility “rejected” that and forced her to identify as a man in their records.

James donated plasma a few times a week throughout the years in Duluth. In 2015, she pushed the company to identify her as a woman in their records. At some point after that, her attorney said, she was told she could no longer donate because of her gender identity.

James filed a discrimination complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights in 2016, which investigated and found in 2017 that the allegation had merit.

The department tried to initiate settlement talks with CSL Plasma Inc. that included recommended policy changes, but the company refused to engage, Vaynerman said.

The company reported that it had “a flat ban on all transgender donors,” Vaynerman said, adding that its refusal to engage in settlement talks compelled the lawsuit.

The company’s practice flies in the face of FDA recommendations, which allow donors to self-report their gender and recommends “screening out only men who have had sex with other men once or more in the past year,” the lawsuit said.

James never met that criterion for being screened out, her attorney said.
Newville said James attempted to donate plasma in October 2018 at a Minneapolis location. She was denied again, and the company stopped responding to Newville’s queries.

“She was told there is indeed a policy in place — and I was told this by their attorneys as well … that bans transgender persons from donating plasma,” Newville said. “They have not really explained their rational or justification behind it.”

The company’s alleged actions are especially egregious, he said, because in 1975, Minneapolis became the nation’s first governmental body to make discrimination based on gender identity illegal, and in 1993, Minnesota was the first state in the country to do the same.

The state’s lawsuit is asking that a judge: Find CSL Plasma in violation of the state anti-discrimination law, financially compensate James “up to three times the actual damages sustained as well as damages for mental anguish and suffering,” require the company to pay a civil penalty to the state, order their employees to undergo training on discrimination, submit quarterly reports regarding its deferral of transgender donors at its Minnesota locations and reimburse the Department of Human Rights and the state Attorney General’s Office for expenses.

According to the company’s website, CSL Plasma is headquartered in Boca Raton, Fla., and is a division of CSL Behring of Pennsylvania. The parent company, CSL Limited (ASX: CSL), is headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.

Twitter: @ChaoStrib

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers were free to discriminate against employees for almost any reason – whether it be their race, religion, or, of course, their gender.  Even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, employers continued to post gender- (and race-) specific help-wanted ads:

In 1968, after a year-long fight by women’s organizations against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and some of the largest publications in America, including the New York Times, the EEOC determined that this practice of gendering help-wanted ads was contrary to the mandates of the Civil Rights Act and federal law — outlawing the practice for good.

Or so it seemed.  In today’s social-media economy, the ugly practice of limiting opportunities based on gender (or otherwise) is alive-and-well.  Facebook, and other social-media platforms, allow employers to specify the gender sought when placing help-wanted ads on the platform.

When an employer specifies a gender in its Facebook job posting, members of the excluded gender do not see the ad.  Unlike in the 1960s when women knew of the job-openings but were discouraged from applying because the job was categorized as “for males,” women (or non-binary individuals) looking for jobs on Facebook may not even be aware that employers are discriminating against them.

The ACLU is taking action against both employers and Facebook — the organization filed charges in the EEOC against 10 employers and Facebook on September 18, 2018.

These charges cannot be news to Facebook.  In 2016, the social-media platform came under attack after a ProPublica investigation demonstrated that Facebook allowed discrimination based on race and “ethnic affinity” in the areas of housing and credit.  While Facebook allegedly took steps to prevent groups from engaging in racial discrimination following the ProPublica investigation, it looks like the platform is still not doing enough to prevent employers and other individuals from discriminating on the basis of race.

And so it goes with gender — not only did Facebook know two years ago that it’s targeted ads were in conflict with federal law, it took no proactive steps to ensure compliance.  The fact that employers are allowed to exclude women from viewing their help-wanted ads is not a mere “technical issue” for which Facebook was simply not placed on notice until now — the platform is specifically designed to aid in such discrimination.

While it is “important to note that online platforms like Facebook are generally not liable for content published by others,” says ACLU attorney Galen Sherwin, “Facebook is doing much more than merely publishing content created by others.  It has built the architecture for this discriminatory marketing framework, enabled and encouraged advertisers to use it, and delivered the gender-based ads according to the employers’ sex-based preferences.”

Discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability is strictly prohibited by federal law.  In addition to the categories listed above, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the basis of creed, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, familial status, or sexual orientation under Minnesota state law.

If you believe that you’ve been discriminated against on the basis of one of these categories, call us for a free consultation:  612.349.2729.

To follow the ACLUs action against the 10 employers and Facebook, mentioned above, click here.

For more information on this story, click here or here.

Associate Attorney Cody Blades will be giving a FREE workshop on Motherhood in the Workplace on February 10, 2018  at Blooma prenatal yoga studios in Minnespolis. This workshop will empower pregnant women and mothers by educating them on their rights in relation to their employment. The workshop is perfect for pregnant women, new mothers, doulas, and other professionals guiding women through their pregnancies and postpartum care. Details below.

First of all – if you’ve just been terminated or laid off from your job and you’re looking for answers – we’re sorry that you’re going through this experience. In our country, we often identify with our jobs as part of who we are: losing a job can feel like losing part of your identity. Especially if you’ve given years of your life to a company, built relationships and friendships with your coworkers, and enjoy the work, losing a job can be devastating. On top of that, you’ve likely got more immediate concerns about how you’re going to pay the bills after losing your job and continue to support yourself and your family. We’re truly and sincerely sorry that you’re dealing with this. And I hope this article can help provide some answers.

1. Stabilize your income through unemployment benefits.

The most pressing thing many people need to do is make sure that they continue to have income during this period. Minnesota unemployment insurance is a great first step. In Minnesota, the standard to receive unemployment compensation is lenient toward employees – the State generally wants to make sure that people have a safety net during periods of unemployment.
Unless you were terminated for “misconduct,” you’re probably entitled to unemployment compensation. Misconduct does not include: substandard performance, failure to meet performance expectations, excessive tardiness, or other things like that – if you were terminated for substandard performance or failure to meet performance expectations, you’re still entitled to unemployment payments. Instead, “misconduct” usually means things like theft, assault, or some other kind of “serious violation” of the behavior an employer can reasonably expect.

So – the bottom line is that you’re probably eligible for unemployment benefits. You can apply for those benefits at this link. Learn more about Minnesota unemployment benefits here.

2. Don’t sign a severance agreement and release until you talk to a Minnesota employment lawyer.

Many employers will present employees that they fire or lay off with a “separation agreement” or “severance agreement.” Usually, the agreement will provide some amount of money as a severance payment – often as little as 2 – 4 weeks’ worth of wages – in exchange for the employee releasing the employer from any and all kinds of legal claims, including: wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination, failure to accommodate, unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime.

Please don’t sign such an agreement until you’ve gotten a free consultation with an employment lawyer in Minnesota. It makes sense to have a professional evaluate your situation – for free – to determine if you have any potential claims against your employer. If you have such claims, then the amount of your severance payment can be negotiated much higher than your employer initially offered.

But you don’t know if you have any employment claims unless you talk to an employment lawyer. So please, don’t sign away your rights without talking to a lawyer first.

3. Write down your thoughts on why you believe that you were terminated.

Your employer probably gave you the reasons it says justified your termination. Some common reasons that Minnesota employers give are: failure to meet performance expectations; substandard performance; and decrease in business.

Do you agree with the reasons provided by your employer? That is: do you think that your employer is telling the truth as to why it fired you? If yes, fine. If not, sit down and think about what you believe the real reasons are that your employer terminated you – no matter what reasons your employer is saying. Here are some important things to think about:

•  Did you ever make a complaint about discrimination or harassment (including sexual harassment) in the workplace? If yes, when? Who did you make the complaint to? Who was it about? Do you believe that played a role in your termination? If yes, why do you believe that? This could form the basis of a wrongful termination or workplace retaliation claim under Title VII or the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

• Do you believe that your race, age, gender, pregnancy, disability, or sexual orientation was a factor in your termination? If yes, why do you believe that? This could be the basis of a wrongful termination or discrimination claim under Title VII or the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

•  Did you ever make a report of unlawful activity at work? Did you say that you believed the company or a supervisor or another employee was breaking the law? Did you think any of the company’s practices were unlawful? Who did you make the report to? When? Do you believe that played a role in your termination? Why do you think that? This could form the basis for a wrongful termination claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

•  Did you request medical leave at work? Do you think that was a factor in your termination? Why do you believe that? This could form the basis for a wrongful termination or interference claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

• Were you injured at work? Did you request workers compensation benefits?  Were you terminated shortly after your injury? This could form the basis for a workers compensation retaliation claim.

You may also want to think about:

• Were you ever sexually harassed at work? By whom? When?

• Did you work overtime? Were you paid time and a half for all overtime that you worked? Were you paid for all of your hours worked? Did you get meal and rest breaks? You may have claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, or Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

Write down your thoughts to whichever of these questions you answered “yes” to or think are relevant. Your notes will help a Minneapolis employment lawyer analyze your claims during a free consultation.

4. Make a written request for your personnel file.

Minnesota law requires your employer to give you a copy of your personnel file upon written request by you. You should immediately request the file – in writing – after you termination so that you can review it and so that a Minnesota employment lawyer can review it. Here’s a sample written request that you can cut and paste (and fill in the relevant fields, like “date” and “address”) into an email or letter that you’ll send to your Human Resources department:

Date: _____________

To: Human Resources, Attention [NAME]
[YOUR EMPLOYER’S COMPANY NAME]
[COMPANY ADDRESS]

From: [YOUR NAME and ADDRESS]

Regarding: Request for Personnel File

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 181.961, I request that you send me a complete and accurate copy of my personnel file. Please send the file to:
[YOUR ADDRESS].

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]

Make sure to save a copy of your email or letter request for your records.

5. Make a written request for the reason for your termination within 15 days of your termination.

Minnesota law also mandates that employers provide you the reason for your termination – in writing – if you make a written request for it within 15 days of your termination. This is important because it locks the employer into its story and makes it very difficult for them to change later when your employment lawyer proves their reason was false. Request this so that your employment lawyer can look at it during your free consultation. Here’s a sample written request that you can cut and paste (and fill in the relevant fields, like “date” and “address”) into an email or letter that you send to your Human Resources department or supervisor:

Date: _____________

To: Human Resources, Attention [NAME]
[YOUR EMPLOYER’S COMPANY NAME]
[COMPANY ADDRESS]

From: [YOUR NAME and ADDRESS]

Regarding: Request for Reason for Termination

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 181.933, I request that you provide me the reason for my termination. Please send it to:
[YOUR ADDRESS].

Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]

Make sure to save a copy of your email or letter request for your records.

Conclusion

No matter how you feel right now, please remember that you’re an amazing person who has a special gift to contribute to this world. Some of the greatest achievements and success stories belong to people who were fired by employers too dense to realize their gifts, including: Steve Jobs (of Apple Computers), Oprah Winfrey (Oprah!), JK Rowling (Harry Potter books), Walt Disney, and Thomas Edison. You’re in great company. Maybe this termination will serve you by allowing to pursue your passions and build something wonderful beyond your wildest dreams. Don’t let this get you down. One book you should think about reading is “Awaken the Giant Within”, by Tony Robbins.

Also, remember that you have rights. A host of federal and state laws protect you as an employee. Please take the steps above and schedule a free consultation with a Minnesota employment lawyer.

Madia Law’s Joshua Newville was quoted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune regarding the Supreme Court’s consideration Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and a similar case pending in Minnesota federal court. Newville debated Alliance Defending Freedom‘s Jordan Lorence at the University of Minnesota Law School on November 8.

Workplace Fairness Law in Minnesota – the Basics.

Here’s a quick primer on workplace fairness in Minnesota.  Unfortunately, there’s no state or federal law mandating “fairness” at work.  There’s no law saying that employers need to hire good bosses or kind employees, or that employers need to make good business decisions.  So the bad news is that your employer doesn’t have to be “fair” to you.

But the good news is that there are Minnesota and federal laws that protect employees.  Specifically, Minnesota law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, including sexual harassment and hostile work environment.  As a Minnesota employee, you’re also protected from retaliation for whistle-blowing on activity that you believe is illegal or fraudulent.  Minnesota employment law also guarantees employees minimum wage and overtime pay.

Wrongful Termination in Minnesota

Minnesota is an “at-will”employment state. That means that your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all – even a stupid, incorrect, unfair, or unethical reason – provided that it’s not an illegal reason.

Employers can – and often do – make mistakes or bad business decisions when they terminate employees. Even if an employer’s actions are unfair, unethical, or bad business, the employer hasn’t broken the law unless they make an employment decision such as termination for an illegal reason. Sometimes, employment lawyers refer to these claims as “wrongful termination” claims. We mainly use “wrongful termination” as shorthand for clients – most of the illegal reasons for termination that form the basis for a lawsuit are discrimination, retaliation, or whistleblowing.

There are several illegal reasons for termination:

• The first illegal reason for termination is discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, disability, or sexual orientation. Both Minnesota state law (through the Minnesota Human Rights Act) and federal law (through Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of inherent and arbitrary criteria like race, age, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.
• The second unlawful and wrongful reason for termination is retaliation or reprisal by an employer against an employee for making a complaint or report of discrimination. The Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII both prevent employers from retaliating against employees for making a report of unlawful discrimination – either against themselves or other employees.
• The third illegal reason for termination is retaliation for whistleblowing. Both federal law and state law protect whistleblower employees from suffering retaliation at their jobs for reporting conduct that they believe to be unlawful.
• The federal government allows certain employees up to 90 days in a calendar year for medical leave for themselves or to care for family members through the Family and Medical Leave Act. An illegal reason for termination is if an employer retaliates against an employee for exercising his or her FMLA rights.
• Minnesota protects its injured employees by preventing employers from retaliating against employees who get injured on the job and seek workers compensation benefits. Workers compensation retaliation is illegal. It is illegal for employers to terminate employees just because the employee was injured and sought workers compensation.

Hostile Work Environment Claims in Minneapolis

Even if you haven’t been terminated, you may still have an employment claim against your employer for hostile work environment. This claim is frequently misunderstood, though. It’s not enough to bring a lawsuit to state that your boss or employer is mean to you, doesn’t treat you right, or doesn’t do things the way you think they should be done. Rather, in order to have a legal claim, the hostile work environment must be based on discrimination.

For example, sexual harassment is a common type of hostile work environment claim. Basically, an employee alleges that her supervisors have made her work environment hostile by sexual comments, innuendo, propositions, or even grabbing and assault. Race, age, disability, and sexual orientation discrimination can all form the basis for a hostile work environment claim, but employment lawyers must have the ability to prove that the harassment at work was on account of the employees, race, gender, sex, age, disability, or sexual orientation. For better or worse, there is no law mandating kindness by employers to employees or among peers. Hostile work environment claims must be based on some form of unlawful discrimination.

Minnesota Minimum Wage, Overtime, and Unlawful Deductions Claims

Both Minnesota and the United States mandate that employers pay employees minimum wage and pay time and a half for overtime work. Minnesota also prohibits unlawful deductions from employees’ paychecks by employers. The Fair Labor Standards Act and Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act prohibit retaliation by employers against employees for making reports of unlawful wage and hour practices, such as failing to properly pay minimum wage or time and a half for overtime.

The mandatory minimum wage is different under state and federal law. The state mandated minimum wage is currently $7.75 per hour and the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. That means that Minnesota businesses must pay Minnesota employees the higher of the two – the state minimum wage of $7.75 per hour. As part of this, all work done by employees for employers must be “on the clock.” If companies require employees to do work “off the clock” – before, during, or after their shifts – then the employees likely have a minimum wage claim against the employer.

Also, under federal law, all hours worked per week over 40 by an employee are considered overtime and must be paid at time and a half. Under Minnesota state law, all hours worked over 48 by an employee are considered overtime and must be paid at time and a half. Minnesota companies must abide by both sets of laws: as a practical matter, that means that Minnesota employers must pay employees time and a half for all hours worked in a week over 40. If a company fails to do this, the employee likely has an overtime claim against the employer.

Minnesota and federal plaintiff employment lawyers frequently bring these claims – for minimum wage, overtime, or unlawful deductions – as collective actions or class actions on behalf of all employees affected by the wrongful conduct. Oftentimes, employers short many employees on their paychecks, require off the clock work from many employees, or don’t properly pay overtime or minimum wage to entire groups of employees. Employment lawyers who represent employees then can bring claims on behalf of the entire group of employees to get compensation for all.

Proving Minnesota Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Hostile Work Environment, or Wage and Hour Claims

Wrongful Termination and Discrimination Claims in Minnesota

Very rarely will an employer admit that it terminated an employee for an illegal, discriminatory reason. Usually, even if the employer actually discriminated on the basis of age, race, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, the employer will make up and offer a different, non-discriminatory reason for termination. For example, the employer might claim that it terminated the employee based on poor performance. In order to prevail on a wrongful termination or discrimination claim, you must prove that the reason offered by the employer is a pretextual reason that is just being said so that the employer can avoid having to say the actual, illegal reason for termination.

We’ve got a couple ways that we use to prove pretext on behalf of employees. First, you can demonstrate that the reason given by the employer is just factually wrong. So, for example, if the employer claims that it terminated an employee for poor performance, but actually gave the employee high performance reviews for a number of years and has no written records of any discipline or counseling of the employee, then we’ve created a fact question for a jury regarding whether the reason given by the employer is the real reason for termination, or just a pretextual reason designed to mask unlawful discrimination.

Second, we can prove that the reason given by the employer isn’t the real reason for termination because it wasn’t equally applied to similarly situated employees. So, if the employer claims that it terminated someone for poor performance, but the employee’s peers actually had equal or worse performance reviews than the terminated employee – or documented performance problems that that employee didn’t have – than we’ve created a fact issue regarding whether the employer’s stated reason for termination is the actual reason, or just a pretextual reason designed to mask unlawful discrimination.

Minneapolis Hostile Work Environment Claims 

We prove these claims by basically documenting the maltreatment that employees have received. A couple things are very important here. First, we need to show that the hostile work environment was on account of your age, race, sex, disability, or sexual orientation. So employees can testify or offer other evidence about comments, drawings, emails, or other events that demonstrate that the maltreatment was motivated by discrimination.

Second, the employee needs to show that he or she took steps to notify management of the problem, but management took no action. For example, if an employee believes that her coworkers are sexually harassing her by making sexual comments or grabbing her or whatever, she needs to notify a supervisor as soon as possible. The employer is not liable for the acts of rank and file employees. So just because her coworkers are sexually harassing her, the employer is not automatically liable. The employer is liable, though, if it knows about the sexual harassment and doesn’t take corrective action to protect the employee. So if the employee notified a supervisor about the sexual harassment, and the supervisor did nothing, and the harassment continued, then the employee has a strong case for hostile work environment sexual harassment against the employer.

Minimum Wage, Overtime, and Unlawful Deductions Claims in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

In some ways, these claims are easier to prove than discrimination claims because we don’t need to prove an employer’s intent – we don’t need to show what was going on inside an employer’s head. The only thing we need to prove is that an employee worked a certain number of hours that he or she wasn’t properly paid for, or that unlawful deductions were taken from their checks.

The first thing that we’ll review are your paychecks and your timesheets, to see if they match. Sometimes, they may match but an employer has required you to work off the clock, so the off the clock time isn’t documented. Do your best to keep your own notes or log of the time that you work off the clock, so that we can recreate those hours when seeking damages.

However, ultimately, an employee’s testimony alone is sufficient evidence regarding the amount of hours worked off the clock if an employer has failed to keep accurate records of time worked.

We’re Minnesota Employment Lawyers Who Focus on Plaintiffs’ Employment, Wrongful Termination, Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wage and Hour Cases

We represent employees across Minnesota in wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation,sexual harassment, FMLA, minimum wage and overtime, disability, workers compensation retaliation, and hostile work environment cases. We’ve been honored to take on – and beat – some of the largest employers in the country that broke the law.

You probably have many questions right now, like:

• I’ve been out of work for months now and am having trouble finding a job. Who will cover my lost wages?
• I’ve suffered emotional distress as a result of my employer’s harassment and wrongful termination. Can I get the medical care and compensation that I need?
• My employer wants me to sign a severance agreement that includes a release of all of employment claims. Should I sign it?

These are just some of the questions that workers and employees have after suffering a wrongful termination by their employer. Our employment lawyers can help you answer these questions and will aggressively advocate and litigate on your behalf, so that you can start the process of getting your life back to normal.

You May Be Entitled to Lost Wages, Emotional Distress Compensation, and Punitive Damages

For wrongful termination and discrimination claims, you may be entitled to back pay and front pay damages, emotional distress compensation, treble damages under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, punitive damages under both the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII, and your attorney fees and costs. You may even be entitled to get your job back.

For hostile work environment claims, state and federal law allow you to recover any lost wages, emotional distress damages, treble damages (that means three times the amount of actual damages), punitive damages under both the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII, and your attorney fees and hard costs.

For workers compensation retaliation actions, Minnesota allows plaintiffs to recover back and front pay damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and hard costs.

In minimum wage, overtime, and unlawful deductions actions brought under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act or Fair Labor Standards Act, employees may recover up to 3 years worth of unpaid wages or overtime pay, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, in addition to attorney fees and costs.

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, plaintiff employees may recover lostback pay and front pay, plus an email amount as liquidated damages, in addition to your attorney fees and costs.

Contact Our Minnesota Workplace Fairness Lawyers for a Free Consultation.

You must act quickly when it comes to employment claims. If you wait, there may be strict statutes of limitation that will bar you from filing any claim at all against your employer. Call Madia Law today to discuss your case.

All consultations are free. During your consultation, we’ll discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your case, the potential value of your case (e.g. how much your case is worth), and the best way to proceed. There’s some information that we’ll need when you call, so if possible, please have it handy, including: who did you work for what did you do how long did you work there how much did you earn when were you terminated what was the reason given by the employer for your termination and why do you think the termination was unlawful or wrongful. If you have this information handy, it will allow us to proceed to the heart of your case very quickly and give you good legal advice.

The process for a free consultation with our employment lawyers is pretty simple. First, call our firm. You’ll talk to a clerk for about 5-10 minutes. They’ll get some basic information about you and your case.

About 3 or 4 hours later, you’ll get a call from us. If you’ve got a case that’s a little outside our wheelhouse, then we’ll will call you and give you a referral for an attorney that we think is better suited to handle your case. Our number one goal is to make sure you get the best representation possible for your particular matter – if that’s not us, we’ll tell you immediately and get you to someone else that we trust.

If we think that we can help you, then someone will call you and set an appointment for you to talk to one of our employment lawyers. We’ll call you at time that works for you and discuss your case and give you our honest assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, and value. We’ll then set a time where you can come to our office and meet your employment lawyer personally – at that time, we’ll discuss your case in more detail, sign a contingency fee retainer agreement, and talk about the process of moving forward with your case.

When you come in to meet your employment lawyer, please bring all relevant documents that you want us to look at, including: pay-stubs personnel file (if you have it) employment handbook (if you have it) any letters from your employer, including your termination letter any text messages or emails that you think are important and any other documents that you think might be helpful.

We Represent Minneapolis Employees.

Corporations and big businesses will always be able to pay corporate lawyers to defend them.  For most corporations, paying hourly rates of $400 – $500 to attorneys to litigate their cases is no big deal.  And – there’s no shortage of corporate law firms willing to accept the money and do their bidding.

(more…)

Wrongful Termination in Minneapolis

Minnesota is an “at-will” employment state and Minneapolis is an “at will” employment city. That means that your employer can fire you for any reason or no reason at all – even a stupid, incorrect, unfair, or unethical reason – provided that it’s not an illegal reason.

(more…)

(more…)

Last week, Madia Law secured a complete plaintiffs’ victory in an age discrimination employment lawsuit against the City of Richfield, Minnesota. The Hennepin County jury found that unlawful age discrimination was a motivating factor when the City declined to promote two veteran police officers in 2013.

The jury ordered the City to pay a total of $125,000 to Madia Law clients Greg Peterson and Souphanny Dean. The total award includes $25,000 in punitive damages for each officer, which is the statutory maximum that a jury can award in cases arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Madia Law attorneys Ashwin Madia and Cody Blades represented the plaintiffs at trial. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs were represented by Attorney Charlie Alden.

From the Star Tribune:

A Hennepin County jury this week found that the city of Richfield discriminated against two veteran police officers based on their age while hiring for a job.

The jury on Monday ordered the city to pay $75,000 in total damages to Greg Peterson and $50,000 in total damages to Souphanny Dean, who were over age 40 when they applied for a detective position in 2013. Those awards included $25,000 in punitive damages for each officer.

The city is considering appealing the verdict, said attorney Julie Fleming-Wolfe, who represented Richfield in the case.

The officers alleged that the city examination panel used age as a determining factor in the hiring process. They also alleged that a previous age discrimination suit against the city won by Peterson had been a factor in denying him the job.

Ashwin Madia, an attorney representing the officers, said the jury found that the actions of the examination panel violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Under the act, discriminating based on age is prohibited when making hiring decisions.

The suit initially was filed more than two years ago by four officers, two of whom have since left the case.

The plaintiffs alleged that Richfield had given jobs to younger officers with less experience and that it had followed processes ensuring that the favored candidates got better evaluations.

The hiring exam for the detective position mostly was based on a written and oral test, according to the suit.

Two younger officers who applied “scored dramatically higher” in the oral portion than did Peterson and Dean, Madia said, and were promoted to detective.

Peterson was 51 and Dean 44 at the time of the tests.

“What the jury found was that … at least part of the reason that the younger officers scored so much higher is that the older officers were being graded on a curve,” Madia said. “They were receiving lower grades on the subjective exam in part because of their age.”

As to whether the verdict will prompt a change in hiring processes, Madia said that Richfield leaders likely will consult with the city’s human resources and legal officials before making a decision. Fleming-Wolfe said no other officers have been promoted to detective since the lawsuit was raised.

The suit was first dismissed before an appeals court allowed it to proceed earlier this year. The trial began on Nov. 7 and took four days.

Dean, now 47, is still an officer for the Richfield Police Department, while Peterson, now 54, is not.

Last week, a Minnesota man was awarded $3.5 million after he was ousted from a family banking business.

After Stephen Habberstad came out as gay, his relatives forced him out of his job. Habberstad subsequently filed a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit. While the family defended the lawsuit by arguing that they terminated Haberstand for business reasons, Steele County Judge Joseph Bueltel concluded that, “[t]he truth is: Stephen Habberstad was terminated because he is gay.”

Judge Bueltel also determined that the defendants made “ham-fisted attempts to obfuscate the truth.”

Habberstad’s verdict, which mostly represents lost past and future earnings, is believed to be one of the largest sexual orientation discrimination verdicts in Minnesota history.

Since the early 1990’s, the Minnesota Human Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As a result, employers who treat employees disparately on account of sexual orientation may be subject to a private lawsuit and/or enforcement action by the Minnesota Department of Human Right.

On March 23, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals will hold a non-oral hearing in Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., No. 15-1183. The precedent-setting case has enormous implications for undocumented workers who are injured on the job in Minnesota.

As civil rights attorneys, we’re often asked our views about subjects that touch on or relate to discrimination but are not necessarily illegal. For example, a friend of mine from high school recently referenced a piece the New York Times ran last week regarding a group of California girls attempting to persuade the Boy Scouts of America (“BSA”) to allow girls to join its membership.

The girls are not making a legal argument, and they probably don’t have one. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which was meant to prohibit gender discrimination in education, specifically carves out an exception for organizations such as the BSA. Please bear with me for a bit of personal, non-legal commentary, as I think this discussion is nonetheless very much related to our gender discrimination work. (more…)

In just a few short weeks, an amendment to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) that will provide a right to a jury trial for claims arising under that law will go into effect.

The MHRA  prohibits discrimination and retaliation for opposing such discrimination in a variety of contexts, including public and private employment, housing, education, public accommodation, and more. Protected classes under the MHRA include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, status with regarding to public assistance, sexual orientation, and age. (more…)

https://madialaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Minnesota-Jury-Trial-Attorneys.pngYesterday, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed into law an amendment to the Minnesota Human Rights Act that will ensure victims of discrimination and retaliation are entitled to a jury trial.  The bill, SF2322, was passed by the House and Senate in previous weeks and will go into effect on August 1, 2014.

Previously, there was uncertainty over whether a victim of workplace discrimination, harassment, or retaliation would receive a jury trial, and to what level the jury’s verdict was entitled to deference.  Due to a legal intersection of federal, state, common, and statutory law, and depending on what claims were brought and in what venue, there were often instances were individuals who have been the target of illegal activity by their employer have only been allowed a trial by judge.   (more…)

The Argument of the Month Club describes itself as, “The Men’s Forum for Catholic Apologetics.”  Started 14 years ago, the wildly successful forum now attracts more than 500 men to its monthly discussions.  Tackling tough and wide-ranging topics, the group’s mission is to enlighten both Catholics and non-Catholics in order to better teach and defend the Catholic faith.

Madia Law’s Joshua Newville is honored to speak at the forum on May 13, 2014.  Newville will join Attorney Joel Oster, senior legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, and moderator Michael Olson from Providence Academy, in discussing a topic that intersects employment law and constitutional law: to what extent can private schools terminate employees who speak out against the institution’s principles, teaching, etc.?  Can Catholic schools fire employees who are openly opposed to the very faith tradition of the school itself?

Newville, who represents individuals in matters involving discrimination and the deprivation of civil rights and liberties, will argue that private schools must be careful not to ignore individual employee rights, i.e., principles of free speech and anti-discrimination, in a pursuit of institutional autonomy.  In presenting his argument, Newville will draw on principles and practices in constitutional and employment law, as well as recent relevant case law and broader policy considerations.

Oster, who represents churches and private schools in such litigation, argues that we’ve entered a new era regarding religious freedom – one where government passes law that requires people and institutions to violate their faith. Oster’s argument focuses on the autonomy of the church and how that relates to such constitutional principles as the free exercise of religion pursuant to the First Amendment.

The discussion will take place in the basement of St. Augustine’s Catholic Church, which is located at 408 3rd St. N. in South Saint Paul, MN 55075.  The event details, from the event website:

MENU From the AOTM CORONARY KITCHEN!

Appetizer

Chips and salsa

Dinner

Smoked Pork, boiled red potatoes covered in herbed chived butter

Dessert

Brownies and ice cream

6:00pm Social Hour and Appetizers 7:00pm Dinner 7:30pm Main Presentation 8:30pm Dessert 8:45pm Q&A

$15 at the door (The total cost for the night) You will get great appetizers and beverages, hear one of the best inspirational stories you have ever heard about manhood and faith. Do all this while you listen and enjoy a fabulous “Manly Meal”. Men of all creeds and ages are welcome to join in the good humor, food, and fellowship. Priests and seminarians get in free but will not be shown partiality in debate. Fathers are encouraged to bring their minor sons.

As strides are continually made in the civil rights movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans, citizens from some foreign countries who are temporarily the United States are finding themselves in tough positions.  The post that follows is a submission from an anonymous

“A person who commits the offense of homosexuality… shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life,” states Part II Section 2 of the current Anti Homosexuality Act that recently passed the Ugandan Parliament in December 2013.  Section 3,  titled “Aggravated Homosexuality,” states that “a person who commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.”

As a gay Ugandan student who is about to graduate from school here in the United States,  I don’t even know where to begin with this law.  Even as I go to school in the US, there is no protection because the bill also has an extradition clause.  Section 17 of Part IV states in relevant part, “ a person charged with an offense under this Act shall be liable to extradition under the existing laws.” Further  Part V section 18 of the bill declares that “any international legal instrument whose provisions are contradictory to the spirit and provisions in this Act , are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency.” So, I can really be extradited back to Uganda and potentially face life imprisonment?

But maybe my friends back in Uganda can hide me?  Or I can hide in some part of the country where no one can find me?  Well that’s too bad for me.   Part III section 7 states that, “a person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality is liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.”  This means that any help rendered to me in anyway can technically be considered to be “aiding” and “abetting “homosexuality.  But maybe I can confide in my parents or a therapist back in Uganda as I endure the terror?   Well, looks like my parents and the therapist have to report me to the authorities within 24 hours under the law.  Section 14 of Part III stipulates that, “a person in authority who being aware of the commission of any offense under this Act, omits to report the offense within 24 hours” is liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding three years.  So my family, my friends, my physician and my neighbors have to turn me into the police or they risk 3 years in Jail.  I can’t even visit or live in my parent’s home.   Section 11 Part III of the bill further stipulates that “a person who keeps a house, room, set of rooms of any kind for purposes of homosexuality” is liable on conviction to 7 years.  Who will be willing to let me visit them without risking 7 years?  Does my parents’ house count?  Section 14 goes further to state that, “s person in authority who being aware of the commission of any offense under this Act , omits to report the offense within 24 hours” is liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding three years .  So my friends, my physician, my therapist and my parents have to report me within 24 hours or they can get 3 years ?  So really,  that is my fate .

ANONYMOUS

Madia Law settled an age discrimination case on behalf of “Joan” after defeating her former employer’s motion for summary judgment.

The terms are confidential pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement.

(more…)

I’ll admit it.  When I first learned about ” The Woman Question” during my first year of a law school, I wasn’t impressed.  I immediately equated this feminist approach to the world (and particularly, to the law) with what I felt was as an overly radicalized modern feminism.

This week, I was reminded of The Woman Question.  A new study (conducted by the University of Toronto and published September 16) shows that I wasn’t alone in my thoughts on feminism.  As a society, the study determines, we tend to distrust movements heavily supported by overt activism.  Salon’s Tom Jacobs concludes:

So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message. As Bashir and her colleagues note, potential converts to your cause “may be more receptive to advocates who defy stereotypes by coming across as pleasant and approachable.”

As a threshold matter, the angry activists have reason to be angry.  American women make 81 cents on the dollar when compared to men.  The United States is one of only 8 countries in the world that don’t offer paid maternity leave (with the likes of Suriname, Liberia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa and Tonga).  In 2011, women ran only 12 of the Fortune 500 companies.  In 2010, women accounted for only 31.5% of all lawyers.  Unfortunately, I could go on with employment (and other) disparities.

In any event, as I’ve come to learn since that first year of law school, the kind of strident activism employed by groups such as feminists, environmentalists, and gay rights advocates serves one incredibly important purpose: it forces those in a position of power to pay attention, to take pause, to ask questions.   (more…)

It’s been a busy week for employment law and civil rights.  The impact of the past week’s Supreme Court decisions on these two areas of law cannot be understated.  The Voting Rights Act was gutted, killing protections put in place to prevent discrimination at the ballot box.  The Civil Rights Act was substantially weakened, stripping minority employees across the country from access to Title VII remedies. And although the news for same-sex couples was brighter, the Court’s narrow decisions on that front leave much work to be done in the struggle for equality.

Wednesday, the Supreme Court released its decisions in United States v. Windsor (the “DOMA” case) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (the “Prop 8” case).  These two cases each had the potential to become landmark civil rights precedent, with monumental significance for gay and lesbian Americans; they were heralded by pundits as the most important civil rights cases of our generation.

Indeed, the decision in Windsor will go down as one of the most significant decisions in Supreme Court history; it struck at the heart of DOMA and declared gay and lesbians deserving of equal protection under the law.  The Court’s decision in Perry, on the other hand, will soon be brushed into the dusty corners of irrelevance; in that case, a group of five strange bedfellow Justices entirely ducked the question of whether same-sex couples are entitled to marriage equality.  Thus, the struggle for gay civil rights marches on – and there is a lot of ground to cover. (more…)