It’s Friday morning. As usual, you show up to the office, grab a coffee from the break room, and fire up the computer to begin your day. It’s been a long week but who cares – the weekend is in clear view and the cabin is calling. Then, your boss pays you an unexpected visit and says one of the most dreaded phrases in the desk-jockeying game, “come see me in my office.” To your surprise, a representative from Human Resources is already there. Then it hits you like a ton of bricks – you’re being terminated. Your head starts spinning and anxiety builds. After the meeting you can barely recall what was said and really don’t care. The one thing you do recall is the HR representative handing you a folder with a number of documents in it. After going home and settling down, you actually open up the folder and find something titled “Separation Agreement and Release,” offering you eight weeks of pay. Sounds like there is a silver lining in all of this, right? The answer could vary wildly depending on your circumstances.
Blog
Life can change in a flash. Things are moving along and suddenly your child is in a serious accident, or you are diagnosed with an illness that requires extensive treatment. What do you do about your job? If you have worked for your employer longer than a year, you may have the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave when something like this happens. The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Minnesota Parental Leave Act (MPLA) both require employers to provide leaves of absence to their employees if certain conditions are met. Better yet, the laws guarantee that when employees return to work they are guaranteed their previous job or an equivalent position that is comparable with respect to job duties, pay, and benefits. The provisions of the FMLA and MPLA are different, so it is important to know some key distinctions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibit employers from discriminating against employees (or potential employees)with disabilities. In fact, these laws require employers to accommodate disabled employees if that will make it possible for the employee to continue working and does not create hardship for the employer. Under the ADA and MHRA, you have a right to reasonable accommodations if you are disabled. These may include: modified work schedules; acquisition of or modifications to equipment or devices; reassignment of nonessential functions of the job.
In the past several years For-Profit Colleges and Universities have been under intense scrutiny by both state and federal agencies for claims that they mislead prospective students about placement rates, starting salaries, and credit transfer. Students often obtain federally insured student loans and grants to attend these schools. In fact, the Department of Education has estimated that about 90% of students obtain some form of student aid to attend For-Profit schools- a significantly higher percentage than those who attend public and private post-secondary institutions. However, after graduation, students from For-Profit schools are much more likely to default on their loans because they are unable to secure employment as readily as their peers who graduate from public and private universities and colleges.
On April 22, 2013, Governor Dayton signed HF 290 into law, which modified Minnesota’s False Claims Act found at Minn. Stat. § 15C. The bill primarily changed the statute so that it would reward and facilitate False Claims Act cases at least as effectively as the federal law. By making these changes Minnesota should be eligible to receive a 10% higher recovery from Medicaid fraud cases involving Minnesota.
Greater protections for Minnesota whistleblowers became a reality on May 24, 2013, when Governor Dayton signed HF542, which enhanced Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. §181.932.
The Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report violations of statutes or regulations, or refuse to engage in conduct that violates the law. The legislative changes increase whistleblower protection in several ways:
Societal attitudes seem to be changing regarding sexual orientation discrimination. For example, the recent defeat of the proposed state marriage amendment confirmed that a majority of Minnesota voters do not believe that a prohibition against same-sex marriage should be codified as a state constitutional amendment.
However, many civil rights advocates might agree that more action is required. Certainly, voting down discriminatory laws is a first step. However, additional affirmative actions might be needed to counter the systemic or institutional challenges that many sexual minorities still encounter.
The sale of Girl Scout cookies has become a national institution. Just like the return of Minnesota Twins baseball, blooming flowers, and March Madness, offerings of Tagalongs, Thin Mints and Dosidos are very common during spring. Those who are reading this post have probably purchased a box from young scouts strategically positioned outside a grocery store, or from an office mate who wants to support their child.
So selling Girl Scout cookies at work should be okay, right? Apparently not.
A professor at Macalester College is suing her employer, alleging gender discrimination, as well as race and national origin discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The woman is currently a full professor with tenure at the college, teaching creative writing in its English department. However, the professor claims that she was wrongfully denied several promotions over the years. The first alleged act of discrimination came in 2003, when she was passed over for an associate professor position. Although the professor was subsequently promoted to an associate professor position with full tenure in 2005, she claims she again experienced workplace discrimination when she applied for a full professor position in 2009.
Minnesota workers are entitled to employment protections under both federal and state laws. In many aspects of employment law, Minnesota is a progressive state, with state laws offering additional prohibitions against certain types of workplace discrimination. The distinction between federal and state laws can be of minimal importance to employees who simply benefit from whichever coverage applies and provides the most workplace protections.