December 12, 2012

Minnesota Parenting Leave Rights Expanded by Federal Court

Posted in Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Family Leave, Minnesota Parenting Leave Act tagged , , , , , , , , , , at 11:25 am by Tom Jacobson

IMGIn June I noted how the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in the case of Hansen v. Robert Half International that so long as employees disclose a qualifying reason for parenting leave, they are not required to specifically mention the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act (MPLA) to qualify for MPLA leave. A federal court has further expanded the MPLA by ruling that no specific language is needed to extend the right to reinstatement following an MPLA leave and that a reduction in force (RIF) is not a lawful reason for denying reinstatement.

The federal case, Kersten v. Old Dominion Freight Line, revolved around Anastasia Kersten’s maternity leave while working for Old Dominion.  According to court documents, Kersten and Old Dominion agreed that her leave would run from September 10 through November 1, 2009. On September 18, 2009 Kersten e-mailed an Old Dominion manager and requested to “come back on the 9th as long as that is ok with you.” The manager responded that “Nov 9 will work.” Old Dominion terminated Kersten on November 4, 2009, claiming that the termination was part of a RIF.

Under the MPLA employees may determine the length of leave, “but [the leave] may not exceed six weeks, unless agreed to by the employer.” Also, employees have a limited right to reinstatement at the end of their leave. Old Dominion argued that its agreement to extend Kersten’s leave was not an agreement to extend her right to reinstatement. Relying on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Hansen, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected that theory:

Using Hansen as a guide, the court determines that no specific language is required to extend leave; rather, a specific agreement to reinstate is reached when an employee requests a date to return to work, and an employer consents. A contrary interpretation would contravene the goal of the MPLA – to provide pregnancy leave for a term mutually agreed upon by the employer and employee.

Next, the court addressed Old Dominion’s RIF argument. Under the MPLA, an employee has no right to reinstatement if “the employer experiences a layoff and the employee would have lost a position had the employee not been on leave, pursuant to the good faith operation of a bona fide layoff and recall system, including a system under a collective bargaining agreement.” Thus, the question was whether Old Dominion’s alleged RIF was a layoff that fit within the exception. The court said no. Specifically, the court noted that in this case, Old Dominion was merely implementing a verbal standard operating procedure which did not include any right of a RIF’d employee to be recalled/reinstated; therefore, it was not a “bona fide layoff and recall system,” and it was not a legitimate reason for failing to reinstate Kersten.

What you need to know: Recent court decisions indicate that the MPLA has a very expansive reach and will be liberally interpreted to allow parenting leave. Specifically, based on the Hansen and Kersten cases:

  • Employees who are eligible for MPLA leave are not required to specifically invoke the MPLA in order to qualify for leave; so long as the eligible employee puts the employer on notice of a qualifying reason, s/he is protected by the MPLA.
  • No specific language is required to extend MPLA leave; rather, a specific agreement to reinstate is reached when an employee requests a date to return to work, and the employer consents.
  • A RIF is not a bona fide layoff and recall system that can be used to deny reinstatement to an employee on MPLA leave. 

Managing leaves of absence under the MPLA, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and/or related statutes can be extremely complicated. Therefore, it is important for employers to establish clear policies and procedures for managing these complicated leave situations and to consult with legal counsel for advice when they arise.

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 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

Advertisements

December 10, 2012

Refusing a Drug Test

Posted in Drug and Alcohol Testing, Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act tagged , , , , , at 12:10 pm by Tom Jacobson

Marijuana-leaf_620x414

The recent “legalization” of marijuana in the states of Washington and Colorado has renewed concerns about how drug and alcohol use may impact the workplace. Regardless of what may be happening elsewhere, employers still have the right to insist on a sober workplace, and for Minnesota employers one of the best tools for maintaining that environment is a drug and alcohol testing policy that conforms to the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (MDATWA). One example shows how well such a policy can work.

A Minnesota employer was concerned about drug and alcohol use by employees and applicants for employment and wanted to require them submit to drug and alcohol testing.  So, after consulting with their attorney, the employer adopted a policy that conformed to MDATWA. As required by the law, they were careful to include a clause which noted the right of an employee to refuse testing and the consequences of refusal. Specifically, the policy explained that employees who refuse to test would be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.

After adopting the policy and properly communicating it to the workforce, the employer believed they had reasonable suspicion to test an employee (as allowed by MDATWA and as spelled out in the policy), so the employee was asked to undergo a test and was advised of the consequences for refusal. Rather than take the test, the employee refused and resigned. Thus, by being proactive and implementing the policy, the company created a situation that ultimately led to a relatively clean break between it an employee who the company believed was violating the policy.

What you need to know:  A drug and alcohol testing policy is one of the best tools a Minnesota employer can use to maintain a safe and sober workplace. However, such policies (and the implementation and application of them) must strictly comply to MDATWA. Employers who violate MDATWA can be held liable for damages and attorney’s fees, and the courts may order injunctions and other relief as well. Therefore, employers wishing to adopt such policies should consult with legal counsel to make sure their policy complies with the law.

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 2012 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

%d bloggers like this: