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.

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.

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…)

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.

The employee was put on a six-month leave. At the conclusion of the leave, he was given the choice between resigning or accepting a demotion to an office hundreds of miles away in Wyoming (to a position that paid considerably less). In light of the terrible options, he resigned and filed a constructive discharge complaint five months later.

The employer argued that the suit was barred by a statute of limitations, claiming that the last discriminatory act  triggered the clock on acceptable filing period, which had lapsed before the complaint was filed. The plaintiff argued that his resignation triggered the filing period, thereby rendering his complaint timely.

The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, holding that the filing period on a constructive discharge claim does not begin to run until the date of the employee’s resignation. The Court explained that because resignation is a necessary element for causes of action alleging constructive discharge case, such claims cannot be brought until after an employee resigns. The Court also clarified that the filing period begins to run on the date that the employee tenders their resignation, as opposed to the last date of employment.

The result of this holding is that Minnesota employees now have 300 days after giving notice of their resignation to bring a constructive discharge claim based on discrimination.

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.

Last week, the parties reached a settlement during a federal court mediation. In addition to payment to Mr. Clark, the settlement includes a Consent Decree requiring American Casing to submit to oversight by the EEOC for two years. American Casing must also make a written apology. Mr. Clark was represented by Madia Law Attorney Joshua Newville. American Casing was represented by Ebeltoft Sickler Attorney Nicholas Grant. The EEOC was represented by Attorney Tina Burnside.

What follows is a summary of Mr. Clark’s allegations, including slightly edited and abbreviated excerpts from his Complaint. Mr. Clark and the EEOC alleged that American Casing violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the North Dakota Human Rights Act. (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.

Now, here’s the catch for the plaintiff: if the plaintiff does not accept the offer and takes the case to trial and the jury awards the plaintiff an amount in damages less than the defendant’s offer or no damages at all, the plaintiff must pay for all of the defendant’s costs that were incurred after the offer.

In other words, Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(d). Rule 68 seems to be a double-edged sword when not used strategically. (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.

Officers. M. Johnson and Bruce Schmidt filed a report that indicated Lollie had refused to leave the area; paradoxically, the report made no mention of why Lollie wasn’t allowed in the skyway. The officers inexplicably  charged Lollie with three crimes, all of which were dismissed. Based on the video and the available information, a lawsuit against the officers seems highly likely.

Madia Law, who does not represent Lollie, prosecutes lawsuits against police officers in Minnesota and Wisconsin who violate the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by performing unreasonable searches and seizures, unlawful arrests, or using excessive force.  Additionally, Madia Law holds government officials accountable for racism, sexism, sexual orientation discrimination, and more, by bringing suit for violations of the 14th Amendment.

See also: April 2012: Madia Law Wins Jury Trial in Federal Court for Excessive Force By St. Paul Police

See also: June 2014: Madia Law Jury Trial Verdict: Officer Violated 4th Amendment 

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.

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…)

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.

From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Shelby County v. Holder:

Congress approached the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA with great care and seriousness. The same cannot be said of the Court’s opinion today. The Court makes no genuine attempt to engage with the massive legislative record that Congress assembled. Instead, it relies on increases in voter registration and turnout as if that were the whole story. See supra, at 18–19. Without even identifying a standard of review, the Court dismissively brushes off arguments based on “data from the record,” and declines to enter the “debat[e about] what [the] record shows.” Ante, at 20–21. One would expect more from an opinion striking at the heart of the Nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation.

…

The Court has time and again declined to upset legislation of this genre unless there was no or almost no evidence of unconstitutional action by States. See, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 530 (1997) (legislative record “mention[ed] no episodes [of the kind the legislation aimed to check] occurring in the past 40 years”). No such claim can be made about the congressional record for the 2006 VRA reauthorization. Given a record replete with examples of denial or abridgment of a paramount federal right, the Court should have left the matter where it belongs: in Congress’ bailiwick.

Instead, the Court strikes §4(b)’s coverage provision because, in its view, the provision is not based on “current conditions.” Ante, at 17. It discounts, however, that one such condition was the preclearance remedy in place in the covered jurisdictions, a remedy Congress designed both to catch discrimination before it causes harm, and to guard against return to old ways. 2006 Reauthorization §2(b)(3), (9). Volumes of evidence supported Congress’ determination that the prospect of retrogression was real. Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

…

The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective. The Court appears to believe that the VRA’s success in eliminating the specific devices extant in 1965 means that preclear­ ance is no longer needed. Ante, at 21–22, 23–24. With that belief, and the argument derived from it, history repeats itself. The same assumption—that the problem could be solved when particular methods of voting discrim­ ination are identified and eliminated—was indulged and proved wrong repeatedly prior to the VRA’s enactment. Unlike prior statutes, which singled out particular tests or devices, the VRA is grounded in Congress’ recognition of the “variety and persistence” of measures designed to impair minority voting rights. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 311; supra, at 2. In truth, the evolution of voting discrim­ination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclear­ance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.

Beyond question, the VRA is no ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment. For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.

The record supporting the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA is also extraordinary. It was described by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee as “one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legisla­ tion that the United States Congress has dealt with in the 271⁄2 years” he had served in the House. 152 Cong. Rec. H5143 (July 13, 2006) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner).

After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was the judgment of Congress that “40 years has not been a sufficient amount of time to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination following nearly 100 years of disregard for the dictates of the 15th amendment and to ensure that the right of all citizens to vote is protected as guaranteed by the Constitution.” 2006 Reauthorization §2(b)(7), 120 Stat. 577. That determination of the body empowered to enforce the Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legis­lation” merits this Court’s utmost respect. In my judg­ment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.

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…)

This was a case in which an Asian American manager was chosen for termination pursuant to a reduction in force by his employer.  In hard economic times, employers sometimes need to cut back in their workforce, and there’s nothing illegal about that.  The issue in this case, though, was that the employer chose this particular manager for termination, despite the fact that he had more experience, better performance reviews, and better attendance than his only peer.

(more…)