August 26, 2015

Target Settlement Sheds Light on Disparate Impact Discrimination

Posted in Application Process, Background Checking, Disability, Discrimination, Disparate Impact, Disparate Treatment, Gender / Sex, Race, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , at 9:15 am by Tom Jacobson

By now, you’ve probably read or heard about Target Corporation’s agreement to pay $2.8 million to settle an EEOC discrimination charge. Unlike a “disparate treatment” case where the plaintiffs claim that an employer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory intent, this was a “disparate impact” case where the EEOC alleged that screening tests used by Target disproportionately excluded applicants on the basis of race and gender and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. So, what’s the difference between “disparate impact” and “disparate treatment” discrimination?

Disparate impact discrimination cases typically arise out of pre-employment tests, medical exams, background check policies and similar assessments that are used to screen candidates for a job or advancement within a company. The theory was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in 1971 in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. In that case, the Court noted that:

[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude [a protected class] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.

The Griggs Court also stressed that good intentions do not matter, for “[G]ood intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”

Thus, in a disparate impact case, the focus is not on evidence that the employer intended to discriminate.  Rather, the focus is on statistics. If the statistics show that the employer’s screening practice — no matter how innocuous on its face — has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group, the employer must show that the practice is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. The employer might still lose the case if there is evidence that the company refused to adopt an alternative employment practice that would have served the employer’s legitimate interests without creating a disparate impact on a protected class.

In contrast, in a disparate treatment case, the focus is on evidence of the employer’s intent. If the evidence shows that the employer intentionally discriminated against an employee or applicant on the basis of a protected classification, the employer will be held liable for unlawful employment discrimination based on the disparate treatment theory.

In addition to paying nearly $3 million to settle the EEOC case, Target also agreed to several non-monetary terms, such as:

  • Not using the assessments again as part of its exempt-level employment selection procedures;
  • Changing its applicant tracking systems to ensure that the collection of data is sufficient to assess adverse impact;
  • Performing a predictive validity study for all exempt assessments currently in use and any new assessments the company expects to use;
  • Monitoring its assessments for exempt-level professional positions for adverse impact based on race, ethnicity and gender; and
  • Annually providing the EEOC with a detailed summary of the studies and the adverse impact analysis conducted.

As the Target case shows, even seemingly innocent employment screening practices can violate Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, employers who use such devices should carefully evaluate their potential adverse impacts before using or continuing them.

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 Cass, PA

Advertisements

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

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

August 28, 2013

Civil rights in Minnesota: setting the national agenda?

Posted in Age, Color, Commission Membership, Creed, Disability, Discrimination, Gender / Sex, Marital Status, Minnesota Human Rights Act, National Origin, Public Assistance, Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation tagged , , , , at 1:24 pm by Tom Jacobson

“judged … by the content of their character.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It’s a cornerstone of our democracy that laws must change when they do not fit the needs of the majority. Today, the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s iconic I Have a Dream speech, is the perfect opportunity to reflect on how there may be no better example of that principle than the ongoing struggle for civil rights for all Americans.

When it comes to civil rights, Minnesotans have historically been trend setters, not followers (see 150 Years of Civil Rights in Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Human Rights). For example, Minnesotans bravely fought and died in the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, and efforts to protect the rights of  Jews and Native Americans date back to at least the 1930’s. Twenty years before Dr. King’s speech, Minnesota Governor Edward Thye created a commission to study discrimination and economic inequality. In 1946 Minneapolis Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey created the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights, and two years later Minneapolis enacted the country’s first municipal fair employment law. The Minnesota State Act for Fair Employment Practices (which was the predecessor to the Minnesota Human Rights Act) pre-dated the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by nine years. When that state law was passed, the Minnesota Legislature declared:

[T]he public policy of this state is to foster the employment of all individuals in this state in accordance with their fullest capacities, regardless of their race, color, creed, religion, or national origin, and to safeguard their rights to obtain and hold employment without discrimination. Such discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state and menaces the institutions and foundations of democracy.

Since its initial passage, the MHRA has of course been amended several times to add sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, and age to its list of protected classifications. Some of those characteristics are now also protected by federal law,

In June I had the privilege of leading off a morning of presentations at the tenth annual West Central Minnesota Employment Law Update. To put things into perspective, I noted how the law is always playing “catch up.” That is, laws are passed in response to societal change. I suggested that if you want a glimpse into what our laws might look like in the future, pay attention to societal trends now. Let me take that a step further; to envision our nation’s future civil rights landscape, take a look at Minnesota today. But don’t look through rose-colored glasses, for much work still needs to be done to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination that continue to threaten the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state and nation and menace the institutions and foundations of democracy.

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 2013 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

November 15, 2012

Post-election Facebook faux pas shine light on need for workplace policy

Posted in Computer Use, Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, Internet Policies, Race, Social Media in the Workplace, Social Networking tagged , , , , , , , , at 4:19 pm by Tom Jacobson

It’s been barely a week since the 2012 presidential election, but already we are learning of the post-election Facebook faux pas of several employees. For some, their on-line reactions to the electoral outcome have jeopardized their campaigns for continued employment.

For example, one of my readers (thanks, Jay S!) shared with me a Huffington Post report about a  South Carolina teacher who has been suspended and a Ohio teacher who is being investigated — both for their alleged post-election Facebook posts. In the South Carolina case, the teacher is said to have posted, “Congrats Obama. As one of my students sang down the hallway, ‘We get to keep our fooood stamps’…which I pay for because they can’t budget their money…and really, neither can you.” And in the Ohio case, the teacher supposedly posted, “Congrats to those dependent on government, homosexuals, potheads, JAY-Z fans, non Christians, non taxpayers, illegals, communists, Muslims, planned murder clinics, enemies of America, Satan You WON!”

The Los Angeles Times also reports that in Turlock, CA a Cold Stone Creamery employee jumped on Facebook after President Obama’s re-election and posted a racial slur about him, adding, “maybe he will get assassinated.” According to theTimes report, Cold Stone fired her and then tweeted, “The employee is no longer w/the company. We were as shocked as you were by her outrageous & completely unacceptable comments.”

Lastly, WXIA-TV of Atlanta, GA reports that a Georgia clinic worker was recently fired after supposedly posting on Facebook a post-election racial slur about President Obama .

Cases like this do not, however, mean that employers have unbridled discretion to fire employees who they believe have engaged in harmful or offensive social media behavior. There are numerous cases where employees and/or government agencies have successfully challenged employers who have taken such action. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the employees noted above were to challenge their employer’s actions.

What you need to know: If you are an employer, then before disciplining or discharging an employee because of his/her on-line behavior, you must understand and carefully consider the risks. To be proactive, implement and enforce legally sound social media policies. If you are an employee, think twice (or maybe three or four times!) before posting a comment that could cost you your job.

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

November 9, 2012

January 16, 2013 Employment Law Update Announced

Posted in Acknowledgment, Age, Arrest records, At-will Employment, Background Checking, Color, Conviction Records, Criminal History, Disability, Disclaimers, Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Facebook, Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Gender / Sex, Harassment, Hiring and Recruiting, Interactive Process, Leaves of Absence, National Labor Relations Act, National Origin, Posting Requirements, Posting Requrements, Protected Concerted Activity, Race, Reasonable Accommodation, Religion, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Sick Leave, Social Media, Social Media in the Workplace, Workplace Posters tagged , , , , at 10:28 am by Tom Jacobson

Need continuing education credits?  Want to keep up to date on the latest developments in employment law?  If so, here’s an opportunity for you.

I’ll be moderating Lorman’s Employment Law Update in Fargo, North Dakota on January 16, 2013. The day-long event has been approved for 6.5 hours of HRCI and CLE credit, 1.0 hour of HRPD credit, and 8.0 hours of CPE credit.

In interested, please contact me at taj@alexandriamnlaw.com, or click here for more information or to register.

I hope to see you in Fargo on January 13!

P.S. Don’t forget to ask me about a discount on the registration fee!

August 5, 2012

With Legitimate Business Reasons for Dismissal, Plaintiffs Can’t Always Get What They Want

Posted in At-will Employment, Color, Disability, Discrimination, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Gender / Sex, Legitimate business reason, Marital Status, National Origin, Pretext, Prima Facie Case, Race, Reduction in Force (RIF), Religion, Reprisal, Retaliation, Sexual Orientation, Termination for Cause, Wrongful Termination tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 8:20 pm by Tom Jacobson

I’ve often advocated that regardless of whether an employment relationship is contractual (where the reasons and/or process for dismissal may be spelled out in an agreement) or at-will (where the employment can be ended with or without notice and with or without legal cause), the best practice is to have a legitimate business reason for discharging an employee. Three recent court decisions validate my point.

Let me set the stage by noting that in discrimination cases, the employee wants to prove that the employer’s actions were based on some unlawful discriminatory reason, such as age, race or gender.  The employer, of course, wants to prove that its decisions were based on entirely legitimate reasons. To balance these competing interests, the courts recognize a process that begins with the employee being required to present a legally-specified bare minimum of evidence suggesting that discrimination occurred. This is called the employee’s prima facie case. If the employee can do that, the burden shifts to the employer to present evidence that its actions were based on legitimate (non-discriminatory) business reasons. Once that’s done, the burden shifts back to the employee to present evidence that the employer’s stated reason is a pretext, which is basically a cover up for the true discriminatory motive. In legalese, this is referred to as the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework (named after the  United States Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in the case of McDonnell-Douglas v. Green).

The effectiveness of being able to establish a legitimate business reason played out recently in three separate cases. First, in Prody v. City of Anoka a former employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The employer then presented evidence that he was dismissed as a part of a reduction in force (RIF). Because the plaintiff could not establish pretext, the case was dismissed.

Next, in Bone v. G4 Youth Services, LLC the employee alleged age, race and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) discrimination. As in the Prody case, the plaintiff was unable to show that the employer’s stated reasons for the discharge (failing to follow a directive, poor communication, losing the trust of employees, and refusing in general to accommodate employees’ requests) were a pretext for discrimination.

Finally, in Hilt v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. the plaintiff claimed the employer fired her in violation of Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act. The employer presented evidence that the termination resulted from a RIF, and because the plaintiff could not establish that the RIF was a pretext, the court dismissed the case.

So, as these three cases illustrate, if you are an employee who feels you’ve been discriminated against, but your employer can demonstrate a legitimate business reason for its actions, You Can’t Always Get What You Want (thank you, Rolling Stones!).

What you need to know:  Regardless of the type of employment relationship, it is always an employer’s best practice to be able to rely on evidence to show that employment decisions are based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

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

January 18, 2012

Pepsi popped for $3.1M in background check case

Posted in Application Process, Color, Race tagged , , , , , , at 12:24 pm by Tom Jacobson

Background checks are very important tools during the hiring process, but as Pepsi Beverages (formerly Pepsi Bottling Group) recently learned, asking the wrong questions can be discriminatory — and expensive.  In a January 11, 2012 press release the EEOC reported that Pepsi has agreed to pay $3.13 million to settle a case challenging its former background checking policy.

At issue was Pepsi’s policy which rejected applicants who had been arrested and were pending prosecution.  The policy also denied employment to applicants who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses.  According to the EEOC, this policy disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment and that it therefore violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In addition to the monetary settlement, Pepsi also changed is background checking policy, and it agreed to offer employment opportunities to victims of its former policy, supply the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices, and conduct Title VII training for its hiring personnel and managers.

Although using arrest and conviction records to screen applicants is not per se illegal under Title VII, it can be when it is not relevant to the job. Therefore, employers are urged to use them cautiously.

According to Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office, “When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position.  Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII.” Schmid added, “We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.”

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 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

January 12, 2012

Federal court reaffirms importance of harassment policies

Posted in Color, Disability, Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Gender / Sex, Genetic Information, Harassment, Harassment, Marital Status, National Origin, Race, Religion, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Orientation tagged , , , , , , , , , at 11:07 am by Tom Jacobson

I am often asked if employers must have a written policy prohibiting sexual and other forms of unlawful harassment. The short answer is no, for there is no statute, regulation or court decision mandating such policies. However, and it is a big however, implementing such policies is clearly the best practice. And, as reaffirmed by the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2012, having a written policy can be the key to successfully defending harassment charges.

The case is Crawford v. BNSF Railway Co. In this case, BNSF had a “zero tolerance” policy on workplace harassment. Among other things, the policy defined the prohibited conduct, instructed employees to report complaints through one of five channels (one of which was an anonymous employee hotline), explained that  allegations would be investigated “promptly, impartially, and confidentially,” included guidelines explaining the ranges of discipline BNSF might apply to offenders, and contained a provision prohibiting retaliation for reporting discrimination. BNSF also trained employees on how to report harassment.

In this case, five employees alleged that they were victims of unlawful harassment by their supervisor. Specifically, they claimed that their supervisor engaged in a long litany of inappropriate behaviors ranging from fondling and sexual comments to requests for sexual favors, mimicked sex acts, and racial slurs.

Eight months after the alleged harassment began, the employees filed discrimination charges with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  One of the employees then reported the harassment directly to BNSF. BNSF conducted an investigation, which included interviewing four of the plaintiffs. Within two days, BNSF placed the supervisor on administrative leave. After completing its investigation less than two weeks later, BNSF informed the supervisor that he was being terminated, and the supervisor then chose to resign.

The general rule in such cases is that an employer is liable for the unlawful harassment committed by its supervisors unless it can show that: (a) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm.

Noting the existence of BNSF’s zero tolerance policy and its swift action after receiving the employees’ complaint, the court concluded that BNSF had exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior. Then, noting that the employees had not availed themselves of BNSF’s complaint procedure, the court also ruled that they had  unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Accordingly, the court held that it was appropriate to dismiss the employees’ claims. Importantly, the court stressed that “‘distribution of a valid antiharassment policy provides compelling proof’ that an employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly harassing behavior.

Thus, the Crawford v BNSF case clearly illustrates that the best practice for employers is to implement and distribute harassment policies, for without them, employers will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to defend claims on the basis that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly harassment.

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 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

October 26, 2011

MDHR reports 20% jump in discrimination charges

Posted in Disability, Discrimination, Employee Handbooks, Gender / Sex, Race, Sexual Harassment tagged , , , , , at 12:02 pm by Tom Jacobson

The Minnesota Department of Human Rights reports that during the first half of 2011, it received 455 charges of discrimination.  This represents a twenty percent increase when compared with the previous six month period.

Other notable figures from the MDHR’s report, which was submitted on October 11 to the Minnesota Legislature, include:

  • Disability discrimination charges accounted for the highest percentage of cases (24%); race and sex discrimination were next (15% each).
  • MDHR recovered $209,197 in monetary damages for charging parties.
  • 41 cases were submitted to mediation, and 21 of those cases were settled in mediation.
  • 60% of charges were dismissed for lack of merit.
  • 9% of charges were closed after findings of probable cause, while 16% were closed after findings of no probable cause.
The MDHR is responsible for enforcing the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which covers discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and other areas.  However, the vast majority of the MDHR’s activity (61.2%, according to this report), is in the area of employer discrimination.

It is difficult to determine whether the recent surge in charges is due to more aggressive enforcement by the MDHR, better outreach, more unlawful discrimination, and/or greater awareness on the part of employees and other aggrieved parties. Regardless of the cause, the MDHR’s report confirms the importance of maintaining sound equal employment opportunity policies.

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 2011 Swenson Lervick Syverson Trosvig Jacobson Schultz, PA

Next page

%d bloggers like this: