April 17, 2015

Registration Open for Twelfth Annual West Central MN Employment Law Update

Posted in Americans with Disabilities Act, Application Process, Arrest records, Background Checking, Ban the Box, Conviction Records, Credit Checks, Criminal History, Disability, Discrimination, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Form I-9, Interactive Process, Leaves of Absence, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Parenting Leave Act, Parenting Leave, Pregnancy Leave, Reasonable Accommodation, Recruiting, Safety Leave, Sick Leave, Sick or Injured Child Care Leave, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Training, Unexcused Absence, Voting Rights, Women's Economic Security Act tagged , , , , , at 9:19 am by Tom Jacobson

attorney Tom Jacobson alexandria mn

Tom Jacobson

Registration is now open for the Twelfth Annual West Central Minnesota Employment Law Update to be held Thursday, June 11, 2015. The event is sponsored by West Central Minnesota SHRM, and it will be held at Alexandria Technical and Community College.

The morning session is designed to inform employers about developing areas of employment law, and it will be presented by four attorneys who practice extensively in that area of the law: Tom Jacobson, Mike Moberg, Sara McGrane and Penelope Phillips. Topics for this year’s event will include:

  • An update on significant employment law developments since last year’s event
  • How to apply the myriad of leave / time off entitlements required by Minnesota law
  • What to do when the ADA, FMLA and worker’s compensation collide due to an employee’s medical condition
  • Legal traps in recruiting

The afternoon session will feature award-winning speaker Andy Masters. Masters is an award-winning author and international speaker who provides attendees with not only a memorable multi-media experience, but also immediate “take-home” value for all levels of HR leadership to help them develop and empower a workforce of future leaders.

Click on the following links for more information and the registration form:

Comments from prior years:

  • “Great event!”
  • “Excellent – would highly recommend!”
  • “I go to several conferences/seminars every year & this is the most informative of all.  Plus, the group is open & friendly — very nice! Thank you!”
  • “Overall — great day & worth the time!”
  • “Excellent program for the price.”

Contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com or 320-763-3141 if you need more information. We hope you can join us on June 11!

Copyright 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

March 26, 2015

Pregnancy Accommodation Claims Revived by US Supreme Court in Young v. UPS

Posted in Discrimination, Gender / Sex, Pregnancy, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Leave, Reasonable Accommodation, Women's Economic Security Act tagged , , , , , at 11:56 pm by Tom Jacobson

pregnancy accommodation

Me, in 1991, wearing the “empathy belly” in Lamaze class the day before our first son was born.

In a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court this week revived Peggy Young’s pregnancy accommodation claims against UPS. The high court’s decision clarifies how the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is to be applied to pregnant employees who work for employers that accommodate employees with nonpregnancy-related disabilities.

The PDA is a 1978 addition to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law has two main parts. First, it says that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Second, it says that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

At issue in Young’s case was the fact that after she became pregnant, her doctor imposed a 20 pound lifting restriction. UPS had a 70 pound lifting requirement for drivers like Young, so they told her she could not work while under that restriction. Young, however, presented evidence that UPS accommodated other workers who suffered on-the-job injuries, had ADA-qualifying disabilities, or had lost their Department of Transportation certifications. Thus, Young claimed that UPS violated the PDA by accommodating the other workers but not those who were pregnant.

The District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals both rejected Young’s claims, but the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts and revived her case. In so doing, the court established the following framework for proving that a woman was subjected to disparate treatment under the pregnancy accommodation requirements of the PDA.

First, the woman must present evidence that: (a) she belongs to the protected class; (b) she sought accommodation; (c) the employer did not accommodate her; and (d) the employer accommodated others “similar in their ability or inability to work.” If the employee proves that much, the employer may then try to justify its failure to accommodate by presenting evidence of “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reasons for denying accommodation. If the employer does so, the employee may then try to rebut that evidence with evidence that the employer’s reason was a pretext (that is, a facade or cover-up of the real discriminatory reason).

The case clarifies that pregnancy accommodation claims can be brought under the PDA, and it establishes what must be proved in order to win such cases. Therefore, it is important for employers and employees to understand their respective rights and obligations under this law. In particular they need to recognize that employers must accommodate pregnant employees if they accommodate nonpregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Finally, here’s a reminder for Minnesota employers and employees. The state’s Women’s Economic Security Act (WESA), which was passed in 2014, includes its own pregnancy accommodation requirements. This law only applies to Minnesota employers with 21 or more employees. The PDA, however, applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Consequently, smaller employers (15-20 employees) will only have to comply with the PDA, but larger ones will need to comply with both laws.

My wife and I with said first-born in 2014 at his graduation from the US Air Force Academy (not likely due to the empathy belly).

My wife and I in 2014 with said first-born at his graduation from the US Air Force Academy (not likely due to the empathy belly).

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 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

March 20, 2015

Save the Date for Twelfth Annual West Central MN Employment Law Update

Posted in Americans with Disabilities Act, Application Process, Arrest records, Background Checking, Ban the Box, Conviction Records, Credit Checks, Criminal History, Disability, Discrimination, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Form I-9, Interactive Process, Leaves of Absence, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Parenting Leave Act, Parenting Leave, Pregnancy Leave, Reasonable Accommodation, Recruiting, Safety Leave, Sick Leave, Sick or Injured Child Care Leave, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Training, Unexcused Absence, Voting Rights, Women's Economic Security Act tagged , , , , at 9:04 am by Tom Jacobson

The twelfth annual West Central Minnesota Employment Law Update will be held Thursday, June 11, 2015 at Alexandria Technical and Community College. The morning session is designed to inform employers about developing areas of employment law, and it will be presented by four attorneys who practice extensively in that area of the law: Tom Jacobson, Mike Moberg, Sara McGrane and Penelope Phillips. Topics for this year’s event will include:

  • An update on significant employment law developments since last year’s event
  • How to apply the myriad of leave / time off entitlements required by Minnesota law
  • What to do when the ADA, FMLA and worker’s compensation collide due to an employee’s medical condition
  • Legal traps in recruiting

The afternoon session will feature award-winning speaker Andy Masters.

Comments from prior years:

  • “Great event!”
  • “Excellent – would highly recommend!”
  • “I go to several conferences/seminars every year & this is the most informative of all.  Plus, the group is open & friendly — very nice! Thank you!”
  • “Overall — great day & worth the time!”
  • “Excellent program for the price.”

We hope you can join us on June 11! Stay tuned for registration, agenda and other details.

Save the Date

Copyright 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

February 23, 2015

Medical Marijuana in the Minnesota Workplace

Posted in Application Process, Drug and Alcohol Testing, Drug and Alcohol Testing, Medical Marijuana, Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act tagged , , , at 6:34 pm by Tom Jacobson

medical marijuana and the workplaceThis morning I had the opportunity to give a Minnesota Continuing Legal Education presentation on the workplace impacts of Minnesota’s legalization of medical marijuana at the 2015 Public Sector Labor and Employment Law Update in Minneapolis.

In short the state’s legalization of medical marijuana (technically, medical “cannabis”) could prove to be very challenging for Minnesota employers. Generally, the law prohibits employers from taking adverse action against applicants and employees who are on the medical cannabis registry and test positive for cannabis components or metabolites.

There are exceptions to that general rule. For example, even when employees are on the registry, the law does not allow them to use, possess, or be impaired by medical cannabis on the work premises or during the hours of employment. Use and possession would be relatively easy to prove, but the presence of cannabis components or metabolites does not necessarily equate to impairment. Consequently, a positive drug test without evidence of impairment (especially following a random test) may be of little value.

Similarly, a positive test result during a pre-employment drug screen of an applicant who is on the registry may also be of little value. After all, because applicants are not yet employees, any impairment could not possibly be “during the hours of employment.” Thus, employers may be left with looking into whether or not the applicant used, possessed or was impaired by medical marijuana on the work premises.

Another exception allows employers to discriminate against employees and applicants who are on the registry if not doing so would violate federal law or regulations or cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations. Thus, for example, it is likely that for jobs requiring a commercial driver’s license subject to federal DOT regulations, employers may discriminate against those who are on the registry.

As a practical matter, the legalization of medical marijuana will affect relatively few Minnesota employers as the law is currently written. It has been estimated that only 5,000 Minnesotans will qualify for the registry (WCCO reports that only about 1,000 to date have expressed interest). And, those who do are unfortunately suffering from a short list of serious impairments, many of which will likely keep them out of the workforce. Thus, it should be a rare occurrence for an employer to need to address this issue. However, the potential expansion of the list of reasons for getting on the registry would greatly increase the chances that employers will be faced with these challenges.

As a result, employers must be prepared to deal with these issues. This means training employees to recognize signs of use, possession and impairment, and proactively amending policies to be prepared for these challenges before they arise.

Finally, employers and employees need to keep in mind that medical cannabis cannot be made available in Minnesota until July 1, 2015. So any positive test results until then cannot be excused by being on the registry.

For more information about this article, please see Dazed and Confused: Medical Marijuana and the Workplace, or contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com.

The comments posted in this article 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 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

January 29, 2015

Hit-men, harassment & the perils of office romance

Posted in Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Gender / Sex, Harassment, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Office Dating, Office Romance - Dating, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Workplace Romance tagged , , , , , , , at 11:09 am by Tom Jacobson

office romanceWith Valentine’s Day just around the corner, it seems like a good time to remind everyone that office romance is generally a very bad idea. After all, it might lead to murder-for-hire plots, ugly custody fights, and the occasional sexual harassment suit.

Take the recent Stearns County, Minnesota case involving Nomad Pipeline Services CEO Robert Schueller. He was charged with orchestrating a murder-for-hire plot where it’s alleged that he tried to hire a hit man to kill the fiance’ of an employee with whom he had an affair (see MyFox9, Charges: Office affair break-up, murder-for-hire plot).

Or, there’s the case that fellow blawger Eric Meyer recently noted where an office affair apparently resulted in pregnancy, a custody battle, and a sexual harassment claim.

Those are extreme examples of love gone bad, but I’ve seen office romance cases that have taken a big toll, albeit without the intrigue. Co-workers perceive favoritism toward the boss’s paramour. Jilted lovers persist in their advances, which are then perceived as hostile. Encounters that were once consensual are suddenly claimed to be unwelcome. Employees struggle to know how to end a personal relationship when they have to continue working with their former significant other. What was once romance becomes harassment that ends up in court.

Of course, there are examples where office dating blossoms into healthy relationships. However, no one can predict where a new romance will lead. To mimimize the risk that it will lead to the courthouse, see my prior article, Big Bang and the Office Dating Game.

Have you taken my poll on President Obama’s mandatory paid sick leave proposal? If not, click here. Poll closes January 30.

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 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

January 16, 2015

Poll: Obama’s push for mandatory paid sick leave is not a good idea

Posted in Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Leaves of Absence, Sick Leave, Uncategorized tagged , , , , at 1:08 am by Tom Jacobson

paid sick leavePresident Barack Obama has recently pushed for mandatory paid sick leave for American workers. He asked for federal, state and local measures that would allow workers to earn up to a week of paid sick time annually. His proposals include a request for more than $2 billion in new spending to urge states to create paid family and medical leave programs.

For more details on his proposal, see reports by the Washington Post, USA Today, Baltimore Sun, Fox News and numerous other media outlets.

I asked my readers what think about this idea. Their response? They don’t like it:

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Poll Results

Only time and politics will tell whether their views are reflected in Washington.

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 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

January 5, 2015

MDHR Mediation — a Cautionary Tale

Posted in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Discrimination, MDHR Mediation, Mediation, Minnesota Human Rights Act, Uncategorized tagged , , , at 11:33 am by Tom Jacobson

Mediated Settlement AgreementI am a strong advocate for mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). However, a recent Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”) case should cause anyone with charges pending before that agency to think twice before participating in MDHR mediation.

For the uninitiated, mediation is an ADR process where someone trained as a neutral (usually an attorney) is hired to meet with the parties and facilitate a discussion which, in the majority of cases, results in settlement of the dispute. It is a highly effective form of ADR.

When employment discrimination charges are filed with MDHR, the agency will often offer to mediate the dispute. Parties who agree to MDHR mediation hope for the same outcomes to be achieved as in private mediation; that is, saving the expense and delay of litigation, fashioning their own relief, maintaining a level of confidentiality, and avoiding the risk of a judge or jury publicly deciding their fate. An additional benefit of MDHR mediation is that the agency provides the mediator at no cost to the parties, whereas the parties typically share the cost of a privately retained mediator.

One recent MDHR case highlights the potential for unintended consequences of MDHR mediation. The case involved discrimination charges filed against Alexandria Light and Power (“ALP”) by an employee who had resigned. The case was settled through MDHR mediation with an agreement for the claimant to paid $65,000.00 by ALP’s insurer and with no admission of liability or findings of wrongdoing by ALP. This part of the process seemed to accomplish the parties’ goals of saving costs and minimizing risk.

However, after the settlement was reached, MDHR publicized the outcome with a press release that was posted on its website and then re-distributed by local and statewide media. The problem with the MDHR press release was that it did not accurately describe the case or the settlement. Consequently, ALP issued its own statement to correct the misinformation.

Because ALP is a municipally owned utility, state law required that the settlement be public information; therefore, the parties did not expect the settlement to remain confidential. However, having the settlement inaccurately described in an MDHR press release was an unexpected twist.

Thus, parties facing MDHR charges should bear in mind the possibility of the agency publicizing the outcome of a settlement. To minimize that risk, consider using a private mediator, include confidentiality clauses (to the extent allowed by law), and if utilizing MDHR mediation, discuss beforehand with the agency any publicity limits that may be imposed.

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 2015 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

December 9, 2014

Supreme Court sides with employers in security screenings pay case

Posted in Fair Labor Standards Act, Hours Worked, Principal activities, Security screenings tagged , , , , , , at 3:02 pm by Tom Jacobson

time clockThe United States Supreme Court today ruled unanimously in favor of employers in a case relating to whether or not employees must be paid for time spent in security screenings. The case is Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk.

Integrity Staffing Solutions required its hourly workers to undergo security screenings before leaving the warehouse each day. The workers were not paid for this time, which took about 25 minutes per day. A group of former employees sued, claiming the practice violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (as amended by the Portal to Portal Act). This law generally requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked.

The high court rejected the employees’ claims. Specifically, the court noted that under the FLSA, employers do not have to pay for activities that occur before or after “the performance of the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform.” Under the court’s precedents, compensable “principal activities” include tasks that are “integral and indispensable” parts of the principal activity.

Thus, the legal question was whether or not the screenings were part of the employees’ principal work activities (which would be compensable) or mere pre- or postliminary activities (which would not be compensable).

In siding with the employer, the court ruled that the screenings were not the principal activities the employees were hired to do. Rather, the court said, the employees were hired “to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and package them for shipment,” not to undergo security screenings. The court also ruled that the screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to their retrieving and packaging responsibilities.

The court expressly rejected the employees’ argument that the focus should be on whether the particular activity was required by the employer. Rather, the court said, the focus must be on whether the task was tied to the productive work that the employee was employed to perform.

The decision is a victory for employers in that it re-affirms decades of precedent that hourly employees do not have to be paid for mandatory pre- and postliminary activities that are not the employees’ “principal activities” and are not “integral and indispensable” to those activities. Employers should, however, use caution when applying this standard and should carefully analyze any pre- and post work tasks to determine whether they are or are not compensable.

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 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

Next page

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: