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.

We picked this case up just 3 weeks before trial.  It had an interesting procedural history: the district court judge originally dismissed the case on summary judgment and held that defendants won as a matter of law.  The plaintiff, John, appealed the case on his own – pro se – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals with the help of his wife, who is a practicing criminal defense attorney.  The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and held that a jury needed to determine fact disputes before either side won.  So it was sent back down to the district court for trial.  John retained us just 3 weeks before his trial date.

The basic facts: John had partnered with “Jim” to create a start-up company.  The two worked together for a year and half building the company.  A major retailer expressed interest in buying the company’s product and putting it on shelves for the holiday season to test it out.  John and Jim agreed that John would acquire a 10% ownership stake in the company when the retailer issued it’s purchase order.

A few months before the retailer issued a purchase order, John and Jim had some disagreements relating to the company.  Jim then reached out to several of John’s acquaintances for help, including “Kip,” the broker negotiating the deal with Retailer.  Kip then worked with Jim to try to pressure and force John to release his ownership interest in the company.  When those efforts failed, Kip contacted Retailer and told it to cancel its purchase order.  Retailer cancelled the order, and John therefore didn’t acquire 10% of the company.

John sued Kip for interfering with the contact he had with Jim.  The jury found that Kip tortuously interfered with the contract and, after a 5 day trial, awarded him $175,000.

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.

Two days ago, in a win for Minnesota employees, the Minnesota Court of Appeals declared that whistleblower protection under Minn. Stat. § 181.932 extends back six years. The case, which was before the appellate panel pursuant to remand by the Minnesota Supreme Court, is still progressing its way through the courts, with the plaintiff finally set to get a jury trial on claims brought over four years ago.

Minnesota’s whistleblower statute protects employees who are wrongfully terminated (or suffer other adverse employment action) at work because of reporting or otherwise opposing their employer’s unlawful conduct. The statute’s goal is to provide remedy for workers by allowing them to pursue a civil lawsuit against the employer that illegally discharged them. The statute reads:

Subd. 2.Disclosure of identity.

The identity of any employee making a report to a governmental body or law enforcement official under subdivision 1, clause (1) or (4), is private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02. The identity of an employee providing information under subdivision 1, clause (2), is private data on individuals if:

(1) the employee would not have provided the information without an assurance that the employee’s identity would remain private, because of a concern that the employer would commit an action prohibited under subdivision 1 or that the employee would be subject to some other form of retaliation; or

(2) the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision reasonably believes that the employee would not have provided the data because of that concern.

If the disclosure is necessary for prosecution, the identity of the employee may be disclosed but the employee shall be informed prior to the disclosure.

Subd. 3.False disclosures.

This section does not permit an employee to make statements or disclosures knowing that they are false or that they are in reckless disregard of the truth.

Subd. 4.Collective bargaining rights.

This section does not diminish or impair the rights of a person under any collective bargaining agreement.

Subd. 5.Confidential information

This section does not permit disclosures that would violate federal or state law or diminish or impair the rights of any person to the continued protection of confidentiality of communications provided by common law

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…)

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…)

Historically, owners and managers of strip clubs have adhered to a business model that classifies exotic dancers (often called “strippers”) as independent contractors rather than employees.  By classifying dancers as independent contractors, employers are able to reap the financial benefits of having dancers work for them (and, as a result, turning a profit) while simultaneously avoiding having to pay the dancers for their work, paying into social security, and potentially paying unemployment insurance and workers compensation.  This business model, however, may be quickly eroding.

In November, 2012, a federal court approved a roughly $13 million settlement in a nationwide class-action lawsuit against 16 strip clubs which were classifying their dancers as independent contractors.  Stephanie Hoops, Spearmint Rhino Exotic Dancers Settle Suit For Nearly $13 Million, The Huffington Post (November 11, 2012 1:32 PM) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/spearmint-rhino-exotic-dancers-settle-suit_n_2128458.html.  Moreover, recent court decisions have nearly unanimously ruled that exotic dancers are employees, not independent contractors.  See Hart v. Rick’s Cabaret International, Inc., 2013 WL 4822199 (2013); Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., 808 F.Supp.2d 1326 (2011); Thompson v. Linda And A, Inc. 779 F.Supp.2d 139 (2011).  That notwithstanding, there are still many strip clubs which continue to classify their dancers as independent contractors. (more…)

Madia Law obtained a successful jury trial verdict on behalf of a Minneapolis-based small business last week.  On Tuesday, a Hennepin County jury returned its verdict in Stallions, LLC d/b/a/ Club New York vs. St. Croix Plumbing and Drain Cleaning, LLC f/k/a St. Croix Mechanical, LLC and Steinkraus Plumbing, Inc.  (Case No. 27-CV-11-16645).

The jury held that Defendant St. Croix Plumbing and Drain Cleaning was negligent in performing plumbing work on the Minneapolis Lumber Exchange Building.  The jury found that, as a direct result of St. Croix’s negligence, Club New York was damaged on June 25, 2010 when a catastrophic plumbing failure resulted in major flooding to the building and to Club New York.  The jury awarded Club New York $298,000.00.

Hennepin County Judge Laurie Miller oversaw the five-day trial, where Club New York was represented by Madia Law Attorneys Ashwin Madia and Joshua Newville.  The jury found that Defendant Steinkraus Plumbing, represented by Attorney Teri Benston of Liberty Mutual, was not negligent.

In employment lawsuits, preserving, finding, and utilizing electronic evidence can mean the difference between winning, winning big, or losing on summary judgment.  Electronic discovery (“e-discovery”) is an important source of critical evidence that can help you establish proof of discrimination, retaliation, and pretext.  Because such evidence can be digitally buried in complex servers and information systems, it is important that your employment law attorney be as sophisticated as possible during the discovery phase of your employment lawsuit.

Does your attorney know all the places your employer stores email and other potentially relevant data?  Does your employer’s attorney?  At the onset of litigation, the answer to the first question is a definitive no.  And it may surprise you that the answer to the second question is often the same.  (more…)

On May 24, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton signed HF 542, a bill adding additional protections for whistleblowers.  The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA) was originally passed in 1987, and the purpose was to prohibit employers from acting in a retaliatory manner against employees who made a good faith report of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.[1]  Ambiguities in the language of the statute have allowed for many different interpretations on statutory meaning throughout the years.  In Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid Minnesota Women’s Center, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court dealt with conflicting case law in determining the applicability of a public policy requirement in relation to whistleblower claims.[2]  The court concluded that public policy requirement relating to all whistleblower claims was not in accordance with the statutory language.  While the additional protections signed into law by Governor Dayton do not deal with the public policy requirement, the additions help to clear up other potential ambiguities within the statute.

HF 542 serves two purposes in aiding the original whistleblower act.  First, the new law provides a definitional framework for several key terms that were left for interpretation.  Three sections of § 181.931 have terms that are defined in the new law, in an attempt to reduce conflicting interpretations, and to clearly exemplify the laws intent in protection of whistleblowing reports.  Second the bill expands the scope reported violations that are protected. (more…)

Madia Law, representing a woman who worked at a Twin Cities technology company, has initiated a sex discrimination lawsuit against the company pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  Just prior to the Plaintiff’s hire, the company (which has been in business for decades) employed dozens of men and not a single woman.

In Fall 2012, the Plaintiff commenced employment as a department manager. Around the same time, the Defendant hired two other women. During her interview, a senior-level executive told the Plaintiff that although he was willing to hire her, the company had bad past experiences with women and “doesn’t like to hire” them.  Shortly after starting, the Plaintiff was told that she would have to “prove” herself by, “doing better than any man” if she wanted to keep her job; she was also repeatedly told that she was, “at a disadvantage” because she was a woman. (more…)

In November 2012, Madia Law sued a Twin Cities accounting firm on behalf of a learning disabled accountant. The young accountant, who has suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) since he was a child, disclosed his disability to his supervisor at the time of his first performance evaluation.

Despite being fully capable of being successful at the job, the young man wanted to be sure his supervisor knew that he thinks, learns, and works in a different way than others, particularly since he noticed a few comments on his evaluation that seemed to signal a concern with the way he processed information and executed tasks. The accountant felt that it would help everyone involved to be aware of his slight disability. But, soon after disclosing his disability and requesting slight accommodation, he was fired.  (more…)

Minnesota Lawyer covered Madia Law’s recent $1.3 million jury verdict in it’s October issue.  The front-page article includes excerpts of interviews with Ashwin Madia and Susan Gaertner.

For the first time in almost forty years, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate of the Minnesota Legislature for the previous two sessions.  Despite the veto power of Gov. Mark Dayton (DFL), Minnesota Republicans made significant strides in the latest sessions–including placement on the ballot of the proposed Voter-ID and anti gay marriage amendments.  Whether Republicans retain those majorities in November may have a significant impact on the direction of labor/employment law and various civil rights matters in the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions.

MinnPost photo by James Nord

If the Republicans do retain majorities in both houses, one thing to expect is that Minnesota will join the likes of Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma in having its voters decide on a “right to work” amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

(more…)

After a two week trial, a Carver County jury awarded Madia law client Dr. Sam Deweese nearly $1.3M in damages from his former clinic.

Dr. Deweese worked as a family practice physician for nearly twenty years at his clinic and earned high praise from his patients.  He devoted his entire working life to the institution, committed himself to a high standard of excellence in his profession, and committed a large capital contribution in order to secure his partnership.  Dr. Deweese alleged that his clinic’s relationship with him changed after he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in summer 2007.

(more…)

Madia Law represented “Laura” – a physician’s assistant who was hired by a medical clinic that found Laura through a recruiting agency.  After hiring Laura, the clinic began making deductions from her checks to cover the “recruitment fee” that it paid the agency to find Laura.  In total, the clinic deducted close to $30,000 from Laura’s wages to recover its recruitment costs.

(more…)

Minneapolis Police Sergeant David Clifford, 47, is the executive member of the SWAT team and a 19-year department veteran who has twice received the Medal of Valor. Last week, Clifford was charged with felony assault after he punched Brian Vander Lee in the head at Tanners Station in Andover. Clifford’s actions resulted in Vander Lee requiring life support and at least two brain surgeries. In addition to the serious criminal charges Anoka County has brought against Clifford, he will undoubtedly be named in a civil lawsuit as well. Although Clifford was off-duty, in an interview with the St. Paul Pioneer Press his criminal defense attorney alleged that Clifford was responding to Vander Lee’s “out of control” behavior. Such assertions, if maintained by Clifford, may have liability implications for the City of Minneapolis in a civil lawsuit against Clifford. (more…)

Hansen v. Robert Half Intnt’l (Minn. 2012):  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week that employees taking medical leave from work do not need to mention the Minnesota Parental Leave Act (MPLA) in order to have their jobs protected by the law while on medical leave.

(more…)

LaMont v. Independent School District #728 (Minn. 2012):  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that a hostile work environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act may be based on conduct that is based on sex, even if the conduct is not sexual.

(more…)