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…)

 

Approximately one year ago, the Mayor of Minneapolis, Mayor Betsy Hodges, unveiled her plan to address sick leave, scheduling, and wage theft issues in Minneapolis. In December, a 19-member group called the Workplace Regulations Partnership Group began meeting with each other and members of the public to construct an ordinance that would require employers located in Minneapolis to pay employees for days the employee is required to miss work either because the employee is sick or a member of the employee’s family is sick. The Group is made up of workers, organized labor representatives, employers, and representatives of business groups. Since December, the Group has held 14 listening sessions – sessions designed to get input from local businessowners and employees.

Research conducted by the Group has shown that “high numbers of low-wage workers – particularly women and people of color – lack access to paid leave and often face tough choices between coming to work sick or losing their job.” Erin Golden, “Draft plan for Mpls. Sick-leave ordinance would cover all but the smallest businesses”, MinnPost (March 9, 2016); see also Findings & Recommendations, Workplace Regulations Partnership Group, Presented to the Committee of the Whole at 6 (March 9, 2012) (“Estimates suggest that between one-third and one-half of Minneapolis residents do not have access to paid sick time, with those residents more likely to be women, [people] of color, and concentrated among lower-wage earners, working less than full-time.”) Further, the Group has looked at cities that have implemented similar ordinances and found that such ordinances have resulted “in modest public health improvement and a reduction in ‘presenteeism’ (coming to work sick).”  “Draft plan for Mpls. Sick-leave ordinance” at 7.

(more…)

Last year, we wrote about two class action lawsuits on behalf of Uber and Lyft drivers who were classified as independent contractors. The drivers, who filed suit in 2013, claimed that the mobile application transportation companies improperly classified them in order to avoid wage and hour laws. Opinions issued by the federal courts in March 2015 represented a temporary win for the drivers–allowing their lawsuits to go forward despite the companies’ attempts to have them thrown out.

This week, at least one of the lawsuits has come to an end. The parties in the Lyft lawsuit settled the case for $12.25 million to be paid to the drivers.  Reports Small Business Trends:

Although the settlement does not meet all the demands brought to court by drivers through their lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan, she said it “will result in some significant changes that will benefit drivers.”

As part of the Lyft employee misclassification lawsuit settlement, Lyft agreed to change its terms of service so that its treatment of drivers complies with existing laws governing independent contractors in the State of California.

Under Lyft’s new terms of service, drivers can no longer be terminated for any reason without prior warning. Their termination has to be for a specific reason that is stipulated in the new agreement. Also, drivers must first be notified and given the opportunity to fix the problem.

Additionally, if drivers feel they have been poorly paid, they will be able to take up pay-related disputes before a neutral arbitrator at Lyft’s expense.

Based on reports, it does not appear that Lyft’s drivers will be reclassified, and it does not appear that the primary issue in the case–whether the drivers are improperly classified as independent contractors instead of employees, was resolved. Similarly, the Uber lawsuit, filed by the same plaintiffs’ counsel, continues.

“In the litigation we are pursuing against Uber, we hear daily complaints from drivers about how they feel Uber has mistreated them … cutting fares without their input, shortchanging them on pay they are owed, and deactivating them for no reason or no legitimate reason,” explained Liss-Riordan.

The outcome of the trial in the Uber case, if it indeed goes to trial, will provide guidance in a fast-changing area of law.

Employers, looking to cut costs and be competitive, are continuing to find ways to classify workers as independent contractors, which makes the workers exempt from overtime and minimum wage compensation rates. However, the law is very strict on who can be classified as such.

Madia Law regularly represents workers not properly classified as independent contractors who should instead be considered employees under the law who are entitled to overtime and minimum wage. Likewise, we regularly represent workers improperly classified as salaried individuals who should instead be classified as hourly. If you feel you’re being taken advantage of, contact us today.

In a much-anticipated and long-awaited decision released today, the National Labor Relations Board dodged answering the question of whether college athletes are employees. The ruling, which relates to Northwestern University Football players, was made on jurisdictional grounds. As a result, it leaves open the possibility that other college athletes might be able to unionize.

The unanimous decision can be read here.

Retail giant Wal-Mart is being sued by a group of former employee pharmacists who say they were required to work outside the stores but were not paid for that work. In an amended complaint filed a few weeks ago, the former employees argue that they were required to study and take immunization training at home but were not paid for that time.

“Wal-Mart pressured pharmacists to attend and complete the training course in a variety of ways that relayed to plaintiffs and putative class members it was not voluntary,” their amended complaint said.  (more…)

On March 11, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down opinions in Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., and O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The opinions, which represent at least a temporary win for the drivers who brought suit, highlight the ever-increasing difficulties relating to the classification of employees pursuant to wage and hour law. The two class actions by current and former drivers for Lyft and Uber allege that the companies inappropriately classify them as independent contractors rather than employees.  The courts denied motions by Uber and Lyft to have the cases thrown out of court, ruling that whether the drivers must be considered employees by law is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.

The opinions determined that Uber and Lyft are transportation companies and not simply intermediaries between drivers and their customers. The courts relied on the fact that the companies depend entirely on fees from those transportation services for their revenue, exercise control over interactions between drivers and customers, and sell themselves as transportation companies that serve as alternatives to taxi cabs.  (more…)

The most recent in a string of such lawsuits, a former Marc Jacobs intern has initiated a class action lawsuit against the fashion designer for failing to pay interns proper minimum wage and overtime wage rates.  Plaintiff Linney Warren sued Marc Jacobs alleging that she often worked 70-hour weeks in May, fetching coffee, moving raw materials between studios, sorting fabrics, fixing patterns, and sewing. Other companies recently hit with similar lawsuits include Fox Entertainment, Lions Gate Entertainment, Coach, and more.

Altogether failing to pay interns who are not receiving legitimate academic or vocational training is an unfair wage practice.  Similarly, failing to give paid interns appropriate minimum wage rates and overtime wage rates violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and comparable state legislation.  In addition to exposing employers to liability, these practices take advantage of young people who don’t fully understand wage and hour law and who are working hard in the infancy of their careers.

 

Last week, in a move that will lead to millions more employees being eligible for overtime wage rates for hours worked over 40, President Obama signed an executive order modifying regulations contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA requires that employees who are not classified as “exempt” must be paid overtime wage rates for all hours worked over 40 per week.  There are various exemptions, however, including exemptions for some executive, administrative, and professional employees.  The President’s order, according to his statement, is intended to simplify and narrow the definition of who can properly be classified as exempt.  Specifically, the President discussed the minimum salary requirement level and the requirements surrounding job duties.  The President spoke of modernizing and streamlining the regulations in light of the “changing nature of the workplace.” The President also called on Congress to update the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. 

At the direction of President Obama, the Department of Labor will begin the arduous process of promulgating the rule changes, publishing them, and reviewing public commentary. Unfortunately, until that process is complete, the current regulations remain in effect.  

The full video of the President’s remarks, embedded, below:

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…)

Lessors, Inc. is a national trucking company based in Eagan, Minnesota.  On October 16, 2013, on behalf of current and former Lessors employees, Madia Law filed a class and collective action wage and hour lawsuit against Lessors in United States District Court. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other employees, allege that Lessors has purposely denied employees overtime pay.

The Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act both require higher wage rates for hours worked over 40 and 48, respectively. Although there are exceptions to these rules, Plaintiffs allege that Lessors has purposefully misclassified them and other employees as falling under such an exception in order to avoid paying them the overtime wage rates for which they are entitled. The following is a summary of the allegations in the Complaint, which is titled Luis Felix, Donald Knutson, and Juan Vazquez-Perez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and the Proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Case No. 13-CV-2854 (DWF/JJG). (more…)

Madia Law filed a class and collective action lawsuit in February against Regency Beauty Institute (a national for-profit cosmetology school) on behalf of current and former employees in Regency’s Admissions Department seeking unpaid overtime wages.  On July 15, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Class Certification

The five named plaintiffs in the suit worked as Admissions Representatives at Regency; their job was to make phone calls to prospective students regarding Regency and attempt to enroll them in the school.  They allege that they were not properly paid overtime pay during their time at Regency and that, when they raised the issue with Regency leadership, they were told not to pursue the issue or “burn bridges.”  The lawsuit is described in detail here.  Since the lawsuit was filed in February, eleven additional Admissions Representatives have joined.

The Court’s decision allows Plaintiffs to notify – through a Court authorized notice – all potential class members of the existence of the lawsuit and their ability to participate.  Additionally, the Court’s decision mandates that Regency post notice of the lawsuit at its workplace so that current employees may also make informed decisions regarding participation in the suit.

A bipartisan unanimous vote by the Minnesota House of Representatives and a near unanimous vote by the Minnesota Senate resulted in a major victory for employees.  The recent amendments to the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, signed into law by Governor Mark Dayton, clarified the ability of employees to recover unpaid wages. The amendments help to protect employees’ rights all throughout Minnesota.

The Minnesota Payment of Wages Act previously stated “When any employer employing labor within this state discharges an employee, his wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee.”  The statute, on its face, appeared to safeguard the rights of employees by protecting their wages even after they are discharged.  A narrow reading of the statute by the Minnesota Supreme Court caused the Minnesota Legislature to expand upon the Act. (more…)