We’re trial lawyers. Our core competency – above everything else – is trying cases to juries. And we specialize in beating giants.
Disability Discrimination in Employment 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.
One illegal reason for making any employment decision about an employee is disability discrimination. Your employer can’t make any decision about you – including hiring, termination, pay, raises, leave, suspension, hours, or discipline – on the basis of disability discrimination.
Under both Minnesota and federal law, you have the right to keep working at your job – regardless of your disability or injury – so long as you’re able perform the essential functions of your job, with or without a reasonable accommodation.
Essential Functions of your job
The essential functions of your job include the main tasks that you do at work. Think about your average day at work, from the time you get there to the time you leave – what do you spend most of your time on? What are your fundamental job duties? Generally, the tasks that you spend the most time on that go to the core of your position are essential functions. Essential functions doesn’t include every single thing that you do at work, though: if you only rarely have to do certain things, those tasks are not considered essential functions.
Courts look at several things to determine if a task is an essential function of an employee’s job, including: the job description, amount of time spent doing the task, and the work experience of others who have the same job.
If you have a disability but are still capable of performing the essential functions of your job – and don’t need any accommodations – that’s fantastic. Your employer cannot discriminate against you or make any employment decisions about you based on your disability.
Even if you have a disability and are not capable of performing the essential functions of your job, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Minnesota Human Rights Act still offer protection. The question then becomes whether you’re capable of performing the essential functions of your job with a reasonable accommodation.
Your employer needs to engage in an “interactive process” with you where it sits down with you to discuss: the essential functions of your job, your disability, your restrictions or limitations, and possible reasonable accommodations that would allow you to continue performing your job’s essential functions.
For example, a common physical restriction in disability cases is lifting restrictions. Sometimes physicians will issue restrictions stating that a worker can’t lift more than 15 or 20 pounds. If you have a job where an essential function is to lift sandbags that weigh 40 pounds, your employer would need to sit down with you and engage in an interactive process to see if there’s a reasonable accommodation that would allow you to continue to do the job. Reasonable accommodations can include: new ways of doing the task, equipment that can help do the task, working from home, different hours, transfer or reassignment, medical leave, or getting assistance from coworkers.
In the case of the sandbags, a reasonable accommodation may be for the employer to just purchase 20 lb. sandbags instead of 40 lb. sandbags. Or another reasonable accommodation might be for the employer to get a wheelbarrow that allows you to move the sandbags without lifting them. The main point of the interactive process is for you and your employer to creatively think about new ways of doing the job or equipment or other means of doing the job that will allow you to continue performing the job’s essential functions even with your disability.
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Your condition doesn’t need to prevent – or even significantly restrict – you from performing a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting. Major life activities include: caring for yourself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working.
If your condition makes it harder for you to perform major life activities, then you probably are considered disabled under the ADA.
A great place to start is the interactive process: many employers totally ignore or forget about this requirement of the ADA. An employee will get injured and come back with doctor’s restrictions. Instead of sitting down with the employee and discussing the essential functions of their job, their restrictions, and possible accommodations, the employer will either terminate the employee or put the employee on unpaid leave. This failure to engage in the interactive process creates a presumption of unlawful disability discrimination.
Second, we look at the real essential functions of your job – not just what the employer puts in the job description. The employer might say that lifting 25 lbs. is an essential function of your job in the job description, but that’s incorrect unless you’re a weightlifter. Essential functions should refer to actual tasks in the completion of your job: for example, lifting salt bags. We explore through discovery what employees in your position actually do on a day to day basis to determine what the real essential functions of your job are.
Then, we’ll compare your restrictions to the essential functions and see if you could do the job without accommodation. If yes, great. If your employer terminated you anyway, you’ve got a strong case for disability discrimination.
If not, we’ll consider reasonable accommodations – including different ways of doing the job; equipment; leave; working from home; transfer; or assistance from coworkers – to see if they would have permitted you to perform the essential functions of your job. We oftentimes retain an expert to give an opinion on available accommodations that would have allowed you to continue in your position. If an accommodations was available, and the employer didn’t consider or use it before terminating you, you’ve got a solid case.
No. The ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act both contain anti-retaliation provisions. If your employer terminates you for making a complaint of discrimination or asking for accommodations, then you’ve got a retaliation case in addition to your disability discrimination case.
This is absolutely a good question to ask as you make a decision on whether to pursue a case in court or not. Starting an employment case is a big decision and you should know what your potential return is for the investment of your time and energy.
The short answer is that the value of your case depends on a lot of things, like:
- the strength of your case on the merits;
- the amount of damages you’ve suffered;
- whether your employer has the ability to pay a large amount; and
- your tolerance for risk.
We get this question so much that we’ve created a separate, detailed page going through each of these factors, right here. Check it out – it will give you a good idea of what to expect when we talk about your case at your free consultation.
For employment disability 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 the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and your attorney fees and costs. You may even be entitled to get your job back.
That’s a tough question to answer because there’s really no “average” settlement. The value of an employment disability discrimination case depends on the strength of the case; the damages the employee suffered; the ability of the employer to pay a large amount (if the employer is insured, even better); and the employee’s tolerance for risk and willingness to go to trial. Here’s a detailed breakdown of those factors.But we know that many employees looking for answers right now just want to see some numbers from actual settlements, so here are some numbers.
- We represented a woman, “Jill,” who worked at a Fortune 100 company for 20 years as a maintenance worker. She injured her back on the job and needed medical attention. Her doctor gave her medical restrictions for work saying that she couldn’t lift, push, or pull more than 40 pounds. She continued working at her job, with her restrictions, and continued to excel, as her position didn’t require her to lift more than 40 pounds. One morning, her employer called her into a meeting and told her that she was terminated because her medical restrictions prevented her from performing the essential functions of her job. Her employer didn’t engage in any interactive process at all. We litigated the case all the way through summary judgment. After we beat the defense motion, the employer settled with Jill for $400,000.
Please note that just because this employee received the above result doesn’t mean that’s what your case is worth. This is just an example. Your case value depends on a number of things that we’ll talk about during your consultation.
You need to move quickly on these. In Minnesota, you’ve got just one year from the date of the wrongful termination or last discriminatory act to bring a lawsuit or file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. You’ve only got 300 days from the date of the termination or last discriminatory act to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, if you want to bring federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Fifth, call us for a free consultation to talk about your case.
Contact Our Minnesota and Wisconsin Employment and Disability Discrimination Attorneys for a Free Consultation.
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 your 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.
THE MADIA LAW WAY
We have a process that works in getting exceptional results for our clients.
We are trial lawyers who prepare every case for trial from Day 1. Investigation and legal research are the first things we do, and we spend a lot of time on them. Because we haven’t filed the case yet, we have complete control – the defendant has no say and we want to use this time wisely. We interview witnesses that can help us prove the case. We’ll ask you for all relevant documents in your possession and review those carefully as well. We also will spend some time conducting legal research about unique issues in the case. We pull the jury instructions that the judge will ultimately charge the jury with after closing arguments at trial.
Our next step is typically to send a demand letter to the defendant. In the letter, we thoroughly lay out: the facts surrounding the defendant’s misconduct; the applicable law (including statutory and case citations) that make clear that the defendant broke the law; an analysis of your damages and the defendant’s monetary exposure; a demand for a monetary amount to settle the claim; and an instruction to preserve all relevant evidence, including electronic evidence. The point of this letter is to give the defendant a chance to do the right thing and pay a fair amount before litigation, and to give the defendant an opportunity to present any defenses or evidence it wants us to consider before moving forward. Sometimes we skip the demand letter if there are strategic reasons to move straight to filing, but we typically give defendants a chance to do the right thing.
If early negotiations fail, great – we file a Complaint and serve the defendant with it. A Complaint is a legal document that states the facts of what happened and alleges how the defendant broke the law. It formally starts the lawsuit. Many lawyers draft complaints in a general and relatively vague way, just to get it done and filed – because that’s all that’s really required. We take a different view. We view the Complaint as our first chance to tell your story to the judge, and we take it seriously. So we draft detailed complaints and include legal citations to statutory and judicial authority on unique points. Sometimes we’ll include a number of exhibits, diagrams, or other demonstrative aids to help the Court understand our claims. A secondary benefit of this approach is that defense lawyers reading the Complaint can become educated on the problems of their case and the state of the law – sometimes this leads them to reach out to us shortly after service of the Complaint to re-initiate settlement negotiations. Of course, by that time, the price for settlement has gone up.
Some lawyers view written discovery as a necessary evil – something to get done and out of the way before depositions. Not us. Written discovery is a gift and an opportunity. We spend a great deal of time crafting requests for documents and interrogatories (questions for the defendant to answer in writing) that are specific, detailed, and tailored to get what we need to prove our case. Many lawyers – even great ones – think written discovery is a waste of time because defense lawyers typically answer them on behalf of their clients and can try to stonewall with legalese and objections. We view this as a wonderful opportunity. In our experience, most defense lawyers can’t help themselves when answering discovery: they over-state their defenses and make assertions that their clients will not be able to support in testimony. So we get to commit the defendant to defenses that they can’t back up, leading to contradictions, confusion, and chaos in their depositions later on. We also use Requests for Admission – which many lawyers don’t. The Federal Rules and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure allow us to ask defendants to “admit” certain facts. We send them RFAs that are very difficult for them to deny. Of course, they do it anyway, but that sets them up later for cost and fee-shifting, which the Rules mandate for defendants that deny RFAs that are later proven true. And usually, we can get the defendants’ own witnesses to admit facts that their defense lawyers denied in RFA. That’s a great situation that leads to more chaos and confusion on the defense side.
One last point on written discovery – we send multiple waves of it throughout discovery. We typically send 3 or 4 sets of written discovery requests to defendants throughout discovery. This compounds the problems for them, because the defense lawyers continue to overstate their defenses, but now run into contradictions from not just the defendant witnesses’ deposition testimony, but also their own previous discovery responses. This makes for a great record that we can present to the judge at dispositive motions, and use for impeachment at trial.
This is our chance to question relevant witnesses, on the record with a court reporter (we typically videotape important depositions as well). We get to confront the defense witnesses with all of the evidence we’ve developed through written discovery and document production. By this time, the defendant put its witnesses in an impossible position through its written defenses, which are often untrue and indefensible. So the witness has to either lie to support the defense, or admit it’s not true. That’s a dilemma that works for our clients either way, no matter which option the witness takes. We use depositions to expose contradictions, create a record for dispositive motions, lock witnesses into their stories so that we can impeach them later at trial, and sometimes, to show defense lawyers how hopeless their case is. We often calls from defense counsel shortly after depositions of their clients, seeking to re-start settlement negotiations.
The defendant will usually make a motion for summary judgment after discovery, asking the Court to throw out the case without having a jury trial. Because we’ve hit discovery so hard – both through written discovery and depositions – this is a tough motion for defense counsel to write in our cases. We draft our response for the Court and now get to bring everything together: the admissions, contradictions, nonsense, and obvious fact disputes that we’ve uncovered through discovery. We tell a compelling story that wraps everything together for the Court and makes clear that the defense motion has to be denied, and the defendant needs to face a jury for its conduct.
Sometimes, we’ll even make an affirmative motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to grant judgment in favor of our client without a trial. These motions are generally rare for plaintiffs to make, because the defendant can usually point to some fact dispute on its intent or some other factor that necessitates a trial. But we make affirmative summary judgment motions significantly more than is typical for plaintiffs, and that’s because the work we put in during discovery helps build a fantastic record to do so.
After the Court denies the defense motion for summary judgment, the defendant has only 2 options: 1) do the right thing and pay you a fair amount to our client to settle your claim (usually much, much more at this point than the defendant could have paid at the beginning of the case to settle); or 2) face a jury for its conduct and risk an enormous verdict. This is the dilemma that we have been creating and forcing the defendant into for the entire case. We’ll engage in settlement negotiations at this point from a position of extreme strength, mainly because most defendants are (rightly) terrified of facing a jury to defend their conduct.
This is, candidly, our favorite part of the case – why we went to law school: to hold the powerful accountable before juries. We prepare heavily for trial, including: detailed witness preparation, focus groups, and mock trials. At this point, the potential outcomes and consequences for the defendant are much more severe than if it simply did the right thing at the beginning of the case and paid a fair amount to compensate our client for its misconduct. As we advocate to the jury for our client, we’re also mindful of protecting the record so that defendants will be unsuccessful in attacking the verdict in post-trial motions or appeal.
What Our Clients Say
Madia Law delivers!
Competence, I demand competence. Ashwin and Zane digested all the elements of my case, a complex case with a plethora of moving parts yet distilled it down to its essence. Don't be a victim, stand strong, keep your nose clean and give Sara a call at Madia Law.
If you’re reading this, it’s awful that you are in a position right now where you are online searching for an attorney. I searched online as you are perhaps doing now, read some reviews and settled on an attorney after doing some research. I’ll never forget how blown away I was after my first meeting with Ashwin Madia. I was fortunate to have this man represent me. . I am eternally grateful.
No need to search any longer. You’ve found the right lawyer.
I was referred to Ashwin Madia when it became evident that my case was going to jury trial. He is definitely an expert as a trial lawyer. I found him to be very straightforward, no nonsense, a clear communicator, and I was pleased with the outcome he brought at trial. I would recommend him, and I would go to him again to represent me if the need ever arises.
I would encourage you to spend some time reading Mr. Madia's impressive bio. If that doesn't have you convinced, I will tell you that as someone who spent over 19 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a better trial lawyer than Ashwin. His passion, expertise, ethical commitment, and his incredible memory of the facts, were some of the major reasons I prevailed in my discrimination lawsuit against my employer.Thanks again!
I was referred to Ashwin Madia by a friend, who is also a lawyer. Mr. Madia and his partners dove into my case and prepared for trial in three weeks. Madia Law Firm markets itself as a "trial" driven law firm, and it did not disappoint. Mr. Madia overwhelmed opposing counsel, and after 5 days of trial, the jury ruled in my favor.
My wife, who has been a trial attorney for over 20 years, described Madia's trial work as "amazing," and described his closing argument as one of the best she had ever seen. I highly recommend Madia Law.
I have the utmost respect for Ashwin Madia. Ashwin is professional, knowledgeable, sharp, and genuine. After three years of litigating against my employer, I found myself financially and emotionally drained.
I was ready to give up.
Just five weeks before trial, Ashwin agreed to take on my case and did an amazing and spectacular job at trial! We won! I am so thankful there are people like Ashwin in this world. From the bottom of my heart, thank you!
After being referred to Ashwin Madia I wasn't sure what to expect. Many times in the past I felt unsure of myself. I knew I wanted justice but many times in the past I've had to just walk away. This time was different; if you have the opportunity to get Ashwin Madia to represent you, I know you will have the ammunition you need to defeat your opposition to get the justice your seeking.
This is a spectacular attorney with the understanding of the rights and feelings of others, with the willingness to protect and stand up for those that may not have a voice. I thank you so much Mr. Madia.
Joshua Newville is a brilliant and tenacious attorney. When I met with him, I was close to giving up hope that I would find a solution with my employer, which is a large company with a General Counsel. Josh said he'd take on my case. He then got my employer to agree to mediation, an avenue it had previously refused while it engaged in delaying tactics for years. The fact that Josh brought them to the table was a feat in and of itself. Josh, along with lawyers from Gender Justice, fought to obtain an equitable settlement and to ensure that the issues of wrong-doing were addressed through policy changes within the company. I am incredibly grateful to have had Josh advocate for me. He is skilled, determined, and motivated to get justice for his clients.
I would highly recommend Madia Law. My experience with attorney Joshua Newville and legal assistant Sara Ion exceeded my expectations! I had a need for employment-related legal experts, and I explored three other firms before an attorney friend recommended Madia Law. My initial consultation with Joshua was superb, and throughout the entire process I felt heard and understood. My one regret was not contacting them sooner, as one important deadline had passed. Despite that, our result was far better -- and quicker -- than any of us expected. Thank you Joshua, Sara and Madia Law!
Aswhin is an incredible trial lawyer. When we realized that a claim against our business was definitely going to a jury trial in federal court we switched counsel to Ashwin and his team. At the 11th hour they got spun up on the facts and the law (intellectual property) and delivered an amazing performance against a huge "downtown" law firm. From the beginning of his opening statement it was clear that we made the right choice.
I can't recommend Madia Law highly enough.
I worked with Madia Law for three years on multiple, complex cases. A challenging and emotional situation was handled with professionalism, tenacity and frequent communication by Mr. Newville. I can't speak highly enough about Mr. Newville's ability to quickly understand complex technical issues and synthesize them into strong arguments. I would not hesitate to contact Madia Law in the future should the need arise!
If I could give Joshua Newville with Madia Law 10 stars I would! Josh explained exactly WHAT he intended to do, and the outcome he hoped could be achieved as well as each scenario in between.
Honestly I thought it all sounded too good to be true.
Josh approached the other party in my case with civility and solutions versus aggression and hostility. I feel confident this influenced the other party’s willingness to work for a mutually agreeable solution. If you need someone to fight for your best interest in a work situation, you won't find ANYONE who will do a better job!
Joshua Newville is a bright star to watch. During the handling of our case, he was thorough and highly competent. We were extremely satisfied with the outcome of Josh’s hard work on our behalf. Josh was excellent in communicating information and always promptly responded to correspondence we initiated. Josh had an exceptional grasp of the complexities involved in our case and was current on evolving national rulings/events and resulting implications for our situation. I highly recommend Madia Law.
Ash is an amazing Lawyer! He gave us great advice but still made sure the decision at the end was ours. He was willing to fight for us and did a wonderful job. I could not be more pleased with the outcome and I recommend him highly to anyone in the need of a lawyer. Ash was so smart and did such a great job of helping us understand the process and make sense of it all. He is not only extremely good at his job but he is also a great person. He lets his guard down and by the end of the process he felt more like a friend who was fighting for what was right! I can not say enough good things about him!
Attorney Zane Umstead recently represented my family's interest in a difficult legal situation. He was quite effective and direct in dealing with the opposing party; yet to us he was very kind, thoughtful and courteous. He even generously offered to waive his entire legal fee after spending a generous amount of his time working hard on the case, if we elected not to bring the conflict to a conclusion. His integrity is exemplary and he makes his profession respectable. We highly recommend Attorney Umstead with great enthusiasm.
What can I say about Madia Law, working with Zane and Cody was a privilege, working with Ashwin was a honor. This firm shows great appreciation and care to their clients. I wish nothing but success to all of them.
The future of Madia law is bright and prosperous.
Thank you again for believing in me and showing the little guy counts.