Bloomington police officers on duty at the Mall of America thought that Michael Jointer, an African American male, was someone else. They thought that he was another African American male named Leon Combs, who was on trespass at the mall. So they stopped Jointer and asked for his ID. (more…)

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:

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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…)

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling affecting the statute of limitations (the period of time in which one is allowed to file a lawsuit for alleged unlawful acts) for constructive discharge claims.

In Green v. Brennan, the plaintiff employee had worked as a postmaster in Colorado. After he was denied a promotion that was given to another employee with less seniority and lesser qualifications, he filed a complaint alleging racial discrimination. He later filed a subsequent complaint of retaliation.

(more…)

On Wednesday, Madia Law joined the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Ebeltoft Sickler in requesting that the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota approve a quarter-million dollar settlement and consent decree.

The case, EEOC and Matthew Clark v. American Casing & Equipment, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-66-DLH/CSM (D. N.D.) stems from Madia Law client Matthew Clark’s filing of a charge of discrimination in February 2014, a few weeks after he was fired by American Casing & Equipment, Inc. (“American Casing”). After the EEOC found probable cause to conclude that American Casing engaged in discrimination and retaliation, the EEOC and Mr. Clark filed suit against the company in federal court.

(more…)

Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contains an interesting and nuanced option for civil defendants to settle a case. Rule 68 states in part, “At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(a). Essentially, the defendant may offer the plaintiff a settlement amount to try and end the case.

Here’s the catch for the defendant: if the plaintiff accepts the offer, judgment is entered against the defendant. Similar to a plea bargain in a criminal case, the defendant is admitting liability to avoid going to trial.

(more…)

In an alarming video posted to YouTube this week, two St. Paul police officers violently arrested and tazed a black man who was simply waiting in the skyway to pickup his children from New Horizon’s Academy. The CityPages reports that the man is Chris Lollie; his mugshot is posted below.

(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…)

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.

(more…)

Today, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), which is considered by many to be the most important civil rights law to have ever been authored by Congress. In short: the Supreme Court gutted our country’s chief mechanism for preventing the South from engaging in racially discriminatory voting practices.

(more…)

https://madialaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/screen-capture-30.pngThe Twin Cities leads the nation in racial inequality in the workplace.  A study released last month by the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School suggests one potential contributory reason for the inequity between black and white employees in Minneapolis and St. Paul: segregation that begins in school.

In the late 1980’s, Minnesota began allowing for open enrollment between school districts.  Provided that parents provide for transportation if they elect to put their children in a school outside of their home district, they may send their children to whatever Minnesota public school district they see fit.  The study results suggest, however, that racial discrimination may be one reason parents are choosing to send their children’s to different districts.   (more…)

As published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, Kevin M. Clermont & Stewart J. Schwab observed that from 1979-2006, plaintiffs bringing employment law matters (discrimination, wrongful termination, etc) in federal court won only 15% of the time. When paired with the observation that plaintiffs in non job-related matters won 51% of the time, that 15% figure is stunning. Questions as to why there is such an imbalance in employment law compared to other areas of law have been the focus of many journalists, lawyers and academics. But for attorneys who represent plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, there is one key factor worth focusing on: properly preparing a case to survive motions for dismissal, particularly summary judgement motions.

https://www.finance.co.uk/money/loans/secured-loans-2/

(more…)

In Brown v. Board (U.S. 1954), the United States Supreme Court ordered that public schools across the nation integrate, supposedly putting an end to the segregation of schools on the basis of race. Yet, Minnesota spent the better part of the next thirty years attempting to achieve that end.

In 1964, Title VII of The Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination (by covered employers) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In light of these measures, one might expect that in 2012 matters of racial inequality would be more fully addressed. Yet, Minnesota Public Radio reported Tuesday that the Twin Cities (again) lead the nation in the gap between black and white unemployment. (more…)

The EEOC updated its guidance regarding how criminal records can be used by employers in hiring decisions.  The EEOC reaffirmed that – in some instances – an employer’s use of an individual’s criminal records when making employment decisions will violate Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination.

(more…)

Sanders v. Lee County School District, No. 10-3240 (8th Cir. 2012).  An Arkansas jury found in favor of plaintiff Sharon Sanders on her Title VII claims of race discrimination and constructive discharge.  The jury awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages for race discrimination, $60,825 in back and front pay damages for her constructive discharge, and $8,000 in punitive damages.  After the verdict, the district court judge granted the School District’s motion under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the jury’s verdicts on constructive discharge and punitive damages.  Sanders appealed the district court’s vacation of the jury’s verdicts to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals – the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and reinstated the jury’s findings.

(more…)