October 16, 2014

Workplace bullying: on the job with Scut Farkus

Posted in Bullying, Bullying, Cyber Bullying, Discrimination, Harassment, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Workplace Violence tagged , , , , at 10:30 am by Tom Jacobson

Scut Farkus

Scut Farkus – future workplace bully?

In the holiday classic A Christmas Story, playground bully Scut Farkus torments Ralphie Parker until Ralphie pummels Scut after one too many snowballs to the face. We cheer for Ralphie because he’s the good kid who takes a stand against Scut’s relentless bullying. But what happens when Scut gets a job? What is the law on workplace bullying?

I recently attended a community conversation about workplace bullying. The discussion confirmed that there is much confusion about the topic. The debate is no doubt fueled by recent media attention and legislative attempts to regulate bullying.

Those efforts have been partially successful in the school setting. For example, the State of Minnesota earlier this year passed the Safe and Supportive Schools Act. This new law defines and regulates bullying in the state’s public and charter schools. However, workplace bullying is neither defined nor prohibited by any state or federal law.

Even if the conduct creates a hostile work environment, bullying alone is not unlawful unless the behavior violates some other established law. Recent court decisions emphasize how difficult it is to turn garden-variety bullying into a legal claim.

For example, in Johnson v City University of New York, an employee claimed that a co-worker’s bullying violated Title VII. The judge last month threw out the case, saying:

Victims of non-discriminatory bullying at the workplace, like those treated unfairly for reasons other than their membership in a protected class, must look outside Title VII to secure what may be their fair due. The Court does not condone bullying, but it cannot read Title VII to protect its victims unless the bullying reflects discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals last year overturned a $270,000.00 Ramsey County jury verdict in favor of an employee who reported being bullied by his boss (see Absey v. Dish Network, LLC). Because Minnesota has no anti-workplace bullying law, the plaintiff’s legal theory was actually based on Minnesota’s whistle-blower law, Minn. Stat. § 181.932. In reversing the jury’s verdict, the Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the employer’s adverse action against him was because he complained about his boss.

Bullied employees have found some limited success in the courts. In one Indiana case, Raess v. Doescher, an employee won a lawsuit based on his employer’s behavior, which the court described as “aggressively and rapidly advanc[ing] on the plaintiff with clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face, popping veins, and screaming and swearing at him.” This conduct could certainly be characterized as “bullying,” but the plaintiff won his case not because he was “bullied” but because the jury found the employer’s conduct to be an assault under Indiana law.

These cases underscore the current reality that when employees are confronted by a Scut Farkus-like co-worker, there are no laws specifically defining or prohibiting workplace bullying. However, if the bully’s conduct is egregious enough, there already exist other legal claims that could provide recourse. In addition to assault and whistle-blower claims, it is conceivable that under the right set of facts, bullied employees could successfully sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence or other wrongs based on another employee’s bullying behaviors. And, when bullying is based on employees’ protected class status, they may have viable claims under Title VII and/or comparable laws.

But rather than litigation and legislation, perhaps the better solution is to curb such behaviors through better employment policies and practices that encourage and model respectful working relationships.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

October 9, 2014

Employment retaliation: the high cost of revenge

Posted in Discrimination, National Origin, Race, Retaliation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tagged , , , , , , at 7:40 pm by Tom Jacobson

Kinkead 10-10-14

While seeking revenge, dig two graves; one for yourself. Douglas Horton

Most laws granting rights to employees include anti-retaliation provisions intended to protect the employees who exercise those rights. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no exception. Buffalo, MN based Izza Bending Tube & Wire and Wells Fargo & Co. recently learned that lesson the expensive way. That is, via costly settlements of EEOC employment retaliation charges.

Both cases were investigated by the Minneapolis, MN area office of the EEOC. In the Wells Fargo case, the EEOC determined that an employee reported to the company’s human resources department that she was being subjected to differential treatment based on her race and national origin. The agency also found that the employee’s supervisor told her not to speak Spanish during her non-duty time. Shortly after the employee’s report, the EEOC found, Wells Fargo disciplined and then terminated the employee for practices other employees regularly engaged in without discipline. This, the EEOC concluded, violated the employment retaliation provisions of Title VII.

To resolve the charge, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $295,000.00. The company also agreed to:

  • Conduct training on the laws prohibiting employment discrimination, with special emphasis on employment retaliation and English-only speaking requirements;
  • Distribute to all employees an annual e-mail affirming its commitment to diversity, multilingual ability and the use of languages other than English in the workplace;
  • Report to the EEOC all allegations of discrimination or employment retaliation annually for three years.

In the Izza case, the EEOC alleged that a manager first instructed an employee to not hire a black temporary worker for a permanent position and then told the employee to get rid of him because of his race. The EEOC further alleged that after the employee filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, she was laid off and then terminated in retaliation. Izza settled the case by paying $45,000.00 and agreeing to train employees and report any retaliation complaints to the EEOC.

The main takeaway from these cases is that retaliating against employees who exercise their Title VII rights is by itself a violation of Title VII, and resolving those cases can be extremely expensive. The same holds true for employees who exercise their rights under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and many other employment laws. Moreover, preserving access to the justice system by fighting employment retaliation under Title VII is one of the EEOC’s 2013-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan priorities. Therefore, employers would be wise to make prohibiting employment retaliation one of their HR priorities. Or, start digging.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

October 6, 2014

Disciplining off-duty conduct: why the NFL model doesn’t work in the real world

Posted in Application Process, Arrest records, Background Checking, Ban the Box, Child Abuse and Neglect, Conviction Records, Credit Checks, Criminal History, Discrimination, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Interviewing, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Retention, Negligent Supervision, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tagged , , , , , , , , at 4:15 pm by Tom Jacobson

Police light122811Imagine that you’re an HR director and a security-cam video supposedly depicting one of your key employees knocking out his girlfriend in an elevator ends up on YouTube for the world to see. Or, imagine that one of your key employees is indicted for abusing his son after photos allegedly depicting the boy’s wounds from his dad’s switch go viral. Imagine further that neither incident occurred on your company’s premises or while the employee was on the job.

Sound familiar?

Fortunately, most of us never have to deal with employees who make headlines like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson (see Ray Rice Terminated by Team, Suspended by NFL after New Violent Video, CNN Sept. 16, 2014; Minnesota Vikings Reverse Course, Suspend Adrian Peterson, ABC News Sept. 17, 2014). However, all employers must occasionally confront the challenge of what to about an employee’s off-duty misconduct.

With the suspensions of Rice and Peterson fresh in our minds, it may seem like an easy solution: suspend or fire any employee who is charged with or convicted of a crime that we find repulsive or contrary to our organization’s values. That may work in the NFL, but for the rest of the working world, it’s not that simple. There are many laws that limit how employers may use such information.

One example is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among other things, this law prohibits racial discrimination in employment. Applying Title VII, the courts have said that the overly restrictive use of criminal background information in the workplace is unlawful because it disproportionately excludes certain racial groups from employment.

So, what is too restrictive? There is no hard and fast rule, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title VII, has provided some guidance (see Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know). Specifically, the EEOC first stresses that employers who obtain criminal history information about employees or applicants must do so uniformly: doing it for only members of protected classes will violate Title VII.

The EEOC also notes that once such information is obtained, it must be used in a non-discriminatory way:

  • The same standards must be applied to everyone.
  • A policy or practice must not exclude people with criminal records if the policy or practice significantly disadvantages individuals with a protected characteristic and does not accurately predict who will be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. As stated by the EEOC, the policy or practice is unlawful if it has a “disparate impact” on protected employees and is not “job related and consistent with business necessity.”
  • Be prepared to make exceptions for problems potentially caused by disabilities.

To determine whether a person’s criminal history is “job related and consistent with business necessity” under Title VII, employers need to consider: the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; the time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and the nature of the job held or sought (see Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC April 25, 2012).

Another federal law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, also applies when employers hire a third party to conduct background checks. The FCRA includes requirements about what employers must do before obtaining such information and what they must do before and after taking adverse action based on the reports obtained. The FCRA is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, which has published a summary of employers’ obligations under the law (see Using Consumer Reports: What Employers Need to Know, FTC Jan. 2012).

For Minnesota employers, the state’s “Ban the Box” law (Minn. Stat. Sect. 364.021) presents another challenge. Like Title VII, this law does not prevent an employer from considering a person’s criminal history when making work-related decisions. It does, however, restrict when that information may be obtained or used. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from inquiring into or considering criminal records or history until after applicants have been selected for an interview or, if there is no interview, after a conditional offer of employment is made.

With all of these restrictions, why even bother looking into someone’s off-duty conduct?

Despite these challenges, it’s still good business to hire and keep employees who fit well with the organization. And, there are  risk-management reasons for doing background checks.

For example, if a Minnesota employer does not check an applicant’s background thoroughly enough, it can be held liable for negligently hiring someone who later harms another. That was the situation in the case of Ponticas v. K.M.S. Investments where a landlord was held responsible for its property manager’s sexual assault of a tenant.  The landlord had only done a cursory background check on the manager, and a better pre-hire investigation would have revealed the manager’s history of violent crime.

Similarly, if employees start to exhibit behaviors suggesting that they might harm others, their employers can be held liable for failing to protect those who are eventually harmed.  The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized this concept in the case of Yunker v. Honeywell, where an employee murdered a co-worker after a number of post-hire incidents suggested that the employee had violent propensities.

Now imagine again that video or indictment on your desk. Or imagine that your background check has revealed some other off-duty misconduct that you wished you never knew about. Know that the NFL’s model simply does not apply in the real world. Employers facing these situations should think carefully and not automatically leap to the conclusion that the employee should suffer some work-related consequence in addition to whatever sanction s/he got elsewhere.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

September 24, 2014

Dazed and confused: medical marijuana and the workplace

Posted in Drug and Alcohol Testing, Medical Marijuana, Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act, Uncategorized tagged , , at 5:05 pm by Tom Jacobson

Marijuana-leaf_620x414Minnesota’s legalization of medical marijuana is intended to provide relief for patients suffering from a narrow list of qualifying medical conditions. Minnesota employers may, however, feel a bit dazed and confused about its workplace implications. Let’s try to clear that purple haze.

The main thing employers need to know is that the law prohibits them from discriminating in two distinct ways.  First, employers must not discriminate in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person’s enrollment in the state’s medical marijuana registry program. In other words, employers cannot take adverse action against someone just because he or she is a patient enrolled in the program.

Second, employers must not discriminate against someone who tests positive for cannabis unless the person used, possessed, or was impaired by medical cannabis on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment. Thus, being on the registry is not permission to show up stoned or light up at work.

It’s important to note that under this new law, these two forms of discrimination are actually permitted if not discriminating would violate federal law or regulations or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations. Because of this exception, employers need to take a close look at whether or not they are subject to any federal laws or regulations or licensing restrictions regarding their employees’ marijuana use.

The law also allows a person to present, as part of his or her explanation of a positive test under Minnesota’s Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act, verification of his/her enrollment in the state’s patient registry. Although the verification might help explain the positive test, the law does not say that such a verification justifies using, possessing or being impaired by cannabis at the workplace or during work hours. Thus, employers with MDATWA-compliant drug and alcohol testing policies will need to be prepared to address such explanations if provided.

Finally, although the law passed on May 29, 2014, the workplace implications of medical marijuana will not hit until mid-2015. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, patient registrations will not be accepted until May or June of next year, and medical cannabis will not be available until July 1, 2015. Nevertheless, employers should prepare for this by adopting or modifying workplace drug and alcohol policies, including MDATWA-compliant testing policies, to address these issues.

Still confused? Try a bit of Jimi at Woodstock. Then contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

September 12, 2014

FLSA: counting the cost locally

Posted in Exempt/Non-Exempt Employees, Fair Labor Standards Act, Overtime tagged , , , , , , at 11:08 am by Tom Jacobson

time clockA Douglas County, MN employer recently learned a costly lesson when it misunderstood who is and is not exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In this case, an employee was given a “manager” title and paid a fixed salary, but the employee alleged that his duties were primarily custodial and customer service and did not fit within any exemption allowed by the FLSA. Applying the formula set by FLSA regulations, the employee converted his “salary” to an hourly rate ranging from $11.61 to $13.54 with an overtime premium ranging from $5.81 to $6.77 per hour.

Failing to pay an employee an additional $5.81 to $6.77 per hour may not seem like a terribly expensive mistake, but in this case the employee had evidence suggesting that he had worked about 640 hours of unpaid overtime during his last year of employment. This calculated to approximately $3,800.00 of unpaid overtime, but that wasn’t the end of the story. The FLSA also allows an employee to double the amount of unpaid back wages as liquidated damages, so using the employee’s figures, the $3,800.00 became $7,600.00.

To compound the problem, the employee claimed that the employer also withheld $1,300.00 of the his final wages in violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.13, thus triggering the 15 day wage penalty of that statute. This added another $1,700.00 to the employee’s claim.

Because these laws also allow the employee to recoup his attorney’s fees incurred in trying to recover his wages, he tacked them on as well. Those fees exceeded $4,000.00.

Thus, the employee argued that the employer’s $6.00 per hour mistake became a liability exceeding $14,000.00 (excluding the employer’s own attorney’s fees incurred in defending the claim). The case was eventually settled out of court with a confidential agreement between the parties.

The case illustrates how costly it can be when an employer improperly classifies a non-exempt employee as exempt under the FLSA. Simply calling someone a “manager” and paying her a fixed salary does not automatically make her exempt from overtime. This is because exemptions are highly dependent on the employee’s actual duties, not her title and form of pay. And, while an hour of unpaid overtime may not seem like a huge risk, when those hours accumulate over time and are doubled as liquidated damages, a few dollars can quickly become several thousand, especially when attorney’s fees and court costs are added. Moreover, it’s a much greater problem if multiple employees are involved.

For more information about FLSA exemptions, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

August 1, 2014

Another day, another Executive Order impacting federal contractors

Posted in Age, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Americans with Disabilities Act, Arbitration, Arbitration, Color, Creed, Disability, Discrimination, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Gender / Sex, Harassment, LGBT, Minnesota Human Rights Act, National Labor Relations Act, National Origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Sexual Harassment tagged , , , at 11:23 am by Tom Jacobson

White HouseIn another attempt to flex his regulatory muscle, President Barack Obama on July 31, 2014 issued yet another Executive Order aimed at federal contractors. This one, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, requires potential federal contractors to disclose past employment and labor law violations before they can secure federal contracts.

Earlier this month, President Obama issued an Executive Order to protect the rights of LGBT employees of federal contractors (see President Issues Order to Protect LGBT Workers).

Yesterday’s Order requires most potential federal contractors to disclose violations in the past three years of thirteen specified federal labor and employment laws. These laws include the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and any state counterparts of these statutes.

The Order also directs employers with contracts of $1 million or more to “agree that the decision to arbitrate claims arising under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment may only be made with the voluntary consent of employees or independent contractors after such disputes arise.” In other words, the Order will severely limit these federal contractors’ rights to enter into pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

The Order appears to be directed at preventing repeat offenders, but it will have a major impact on employers who will need to overcome this new regulatory hurdle before securing federal contracts.

For more information about the President’s Order, see Obama Signs Executive Order Protecting Federal Contractors’ Employees (CBS News, 7/31/14), President Issues Order Requiring Contractors to Disclose Labor Law Violations When Competing for Federal Contracts (SHRM, 7/31/14), the President’s FACT SHEET: Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, or contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

July 30, 2014

Defamation vs. Unjust Enrichment

Posted in Defamation, Libel, Slander, Unjust Enrichment tagged , , , , at 9:23 am by Tom Jacobson

Although Jesse Ventura’s lawsuit against Chris Kyle’s Estate was hyped as a “defamation” trial, $1.3 million of the $1.8 million jury verdict was actually an award for “unjust enrichment.”  So, what is unjust enrichment?

In Minnesota one is unjustly enriched if s/he knowingly received or obtained something of value for which s/he in equity and good conscience should pay. And, unlike in a defamation case where damages are based on harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and the plaintiff’s humiliation and embarrassment, damages in an unjust enrichment case are based on the defendant’s profit from his/her wrongful acts.

In the Ventura trial the jurors were instructed to not even consider the unjust enrichment claim unless they first determined that defamation had occurred. Because they found defamation, they were then told to consider: whether the Kyle Estate knowingly received a benefit from the defamatory story; and whether the Estate is not entitled to the benefit received because of circumstances that would make it unjust for it to retain that benefit without compensating Ventura. Because the jury found that unjust enrichment occurred, they were then instructed to award Ventura the amount of money by which they found the Estate had been unjustly enriched.

Defamation and unjust enrichment claims can arise in any employment setting. For example, a supervisor’s false statement about a former employee could lead to a defamation claim. And, an employer’s failure to pay an employee for a benefit the employee provided to the employer could result in an unjust enrichment claim.

For more information about this article, please contact me at  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

July 28, 2014

Minimum wage hike takes effect Friday

Posted in Minimum Wage, Uncategorized tagged at 11:28 am by Tom Jacobson

Minnesota_State_Capitol_5The first phase of Minnesota’s minimum wage increases will take effect this Friday, August 1, 2014. Starting then, small employers must pay at least $6.50 per hour, and large employers must pay at least $8.00 per hour.

The law also allows for a 90-day training wage and a youth wage, both of which mirror the small employer minimum wage rates. It also includes automatic increases on August 1, 2015 and August 1, 2016, and it allows for inflationary increases starting in 2018.

For minimum wage purposes, state law defines a large employer as any enterprise with an annual gross dollar volume of sales made or business done of $500,000.00 or more. A small employer is any enterprise with an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of less than $500,000.00.

For more information about this article, please see the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry’s fact sheet on minimum wage rates, the DOLI’s related Employer Fact Sheet, or contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

July 22, 2014

President issues order to protect LGBT workers

Posted in Discrimination, Gender / Sex, LGBT, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Sexual Orientation tagged , , at 2:08 pm by Tom Jacobson

White HousePresident Barack Obama on July 21, 2014 issued an executive order intended to protect the employment rights of LGBT employees of federal contractors.

Although some states, including Minnesota, already prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, not all do.  Therefore, President Obama said during the signing ceremony that he issued the order as a way “to address this injustice for every American.”

Unlike some legislation, such as the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) which was passed in 2013 by the U.S. Senate but which has since stalled in Congress, this executive order does not contain any exemptions based on religious beliefs.

The President also directed the U.S. Department of Labor to prepare regulations to implement the order. It is anticipated that advocates on all sides of the issue will offer significant input as the regulations are developed.

For more information about this article, please contact me at alexandriamnlaw.com or  taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

July 1, 2014

Key provisions of WESA take effect July 1

Posted in Care of Relatives Leave, Discrimination, Domestic violence, Employee Handbooks, Employee Privacy, Equal Pay, Gender / Sex, Leaves of Absence, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Parenting Leave Act, Nursing Mothers, Parenting Leave, Pregnancy, Retaliation, Sick Leave, Sick or Injured Child Care Leave, Wage non-disclosure, Women's Economic Security Act tagged , , , , , at 12:56 pm by Tom Jacobson

2014_05_11_WESA_signingAlthough Gov. Mark Dayton signed it into law on May 11, 2014 the following key provisions of the Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA) go into effect today:

  • Expansion of Minnesota’s parenting and pregnancy leave laws: More employees are now eligible for this leave, and the amount of available leave has been increased from six to twelve weeks. Applies to Minnesota employers with 21 or more employees.
  • Expansion of permissible use of sick leave: Parents-in-law and grandchildren are now included in the list of persons for whom eligible employees may use their sick leave. Employees may also use sick leave for “safety leave,” which is leave for the purpose of providing or receiving assistance because of sexual assault, domestic abuse, or stalking. Applies to Minnesota employers with 21 or more employees.
  • Wage disclosure prohibitions; employee handbook notice requirement; remedies: Prohibits employers from, among other things, requiring employees to keep their wages confidential. Requires employers to include in their employee handbooks a notice regarding employees’ rights and remedies under the new law. Allows employers to prohibit wage disclosure to competitors and to otherwise protect trade secrets, proprietary and other privileged information. Applies to all Minnesota employers with one or more employees.
  • Clarifies rights of nursing mothers: Clarifies that when making reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location for expressing breast milk in privacy, that space must: be in close proximity to the work area; be somewhere other than a bathroom or a toilet stall; be shielded from view; be free from intrusion from coworkers and the public; and include access to an electrical outlet.  Applies to all Minnesota employers with one or more employees.

This is only a summary of portions of WESA that take effect today. Other provisions of WESA went into effect on May 12, 2014; more will take effect August 1, 2014. To learn how WESA may impact your workplace, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this blog are for general informational purposes only. They are not to be considered as legal advice, and they do not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.

Copyright 2014 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

Next page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 377 other followers

%d bloggers like this: