Blog

Business Woman Signing Documents Deal Concept

Most employers don’t offer severance packages to laid-off employees out of the kindness of their hearts. They do so because they’re buying something. That something may be employees’ release of any harassment or discrimination claims or promises not to solicit employers’ customers. Employers also use severance agreements to buy employees’ silence. As a result, employees are frequently barred from discussing the terms of their agreements or making disparaging remarks about their employers.

But under a Feb. 23, 2023, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling, employers can’t use severance agreements to silence laid-off or furloughed employees. Reversing a decision made under the previous administration, the board held in McLaren Macomb that requiring a laid-off employee to sign a nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreement as a condition of receiving severance benefits violates the employee’s rights under the NLRA.

Specifically, the board found that “a severance agreement is unlawful if its terms have a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their [NLRA] Section 7 rights, and that employers’ proffer of such agreements to employees is unlawful.”

Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

While that language may sound like it only applies to unionized workers, Section 7 applies to all nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory employees (except airline and railroad employees), whether in a unionized workplace or not.

Agreements Can’t ‘Preclude an Employee from Assisting Coworkers With Workplace Issues

In McLaren, 11 furloughed employees signed severance agreements that contained the following common nondisclosure and nondisparagement language that the NLRB ultimately found unlawful:

Confidentiality Agreement. The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.

Nondisclosure. At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.

The board determined that “[p]ublic statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.” Accordingly, “a severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Not only did the board hold that such agreements were unlawful, but it also concluded that proposing provisions that restrain employees from discussing the terms of their employment or severance violates the NLRA:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain employed.

What the Decision Means for Laid-Off Employees

Decisions like McLaren are the primary means through which the NLRB makes and enforces policy. As such, this case now represents the board’s official position on these provisions in severance agreements. When the board reviews similar agreements in the future, it will rely on the McLaren decision to guide its analysis, unless a court of appeals vacates the decision.

As a result, employers may have a difficult time enforcing existing severance agreements that contain nondisclosure or nondisparagement provisions like those above. If you’re a recently or soon-to-be laid-off employee and receive a proposed severance agreement, the NLRB decision is one more reason to consult with experienced employment counsel before signing anything. Understanding your rights, as well as the limits on what employers may ask of you, can be the key to negotiating and securing the best possible severance package.     

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

bored-colleagues-with-laptops-on-desk-sitting-in-office

Whatever else they may be, most employers aren’t dumb. They know that engaging in discrimination, harassment or retaliation against protected groups in hiring and employment practices is illegal. They also understand that discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims can negatively affect their finances and their reputations.

That’s why workplace discrimination is often subtle and nuanced rather than overt and obvious. Some workers may experience blatantly wrongful conduct, such as racial slurs or inappropriate sexual behavior; but rare is the employer who comes right out and says to a job candidate, “Sorry, but we don’t hire Black people,” or tells an employee that they’re being paid less because they have a disability.

As such, it may not be readily apparent to workers that they’re victims of prohibited workplace discrimination. Even when they think their employers or supervisors are treating them unfairly, such as denying them raises or reducing their hours, they may not recognize if such actions are based, in whole or in part, on their race, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability or other characteristic protected under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

That’s why employees should be aware of the many ways that employers can engage in illegal discrimination. Rather than accepting such mistreatment or seething in frustration, workers on the receiving end of discriminatory conduct can take action to hold their employers accountable under the rights and remedies provided by law.

If you experience or become aware of the following, you should consider meeting with an experienced employment lawyer who can evaluate your circumstances, conduct further investigation and advise you on how to proceed.

Unfair Promotion Practices and Limitation of Opportunities

One of the most fundamental forms of workplace discrimination involves “unfair treatment” because of an employee’s membership in a protected class. This often manifests as disparate treatment in promotions, opportunities, job responsibilities or hours. Common examples of such actions, which are illegal if based on an employee’s protected characteristics, include:

    • Involuntary reduction of hours
    • Assignment to undesirable or less-favorable shifts
    • Reassignment to a different department or location
    • Removal or limitation of job responsibilities
    • Exclusion from meetings or other communications
    • Denial of opportunities to work with certain clients
    • Assignment to less profitable territories
    • Patterns of people in specific groups who receive promotions over equally or more qualified workers
    • Inconsistent or unsupportable reasons given for denial of promotion or exclusion from opportunities

Unequal Treatment In Disciplinary Actions

Unequal discipline is another common form of workplace discrimination. Some signs of unfair and unequal treatment in disciplinary actions include:

    • Being disciplined for the same conduct that the employer excused or overlooks with other workers
    • Sudden or surprising negative performance reviews
    • Bypassing established disciplinary procedures or consequences
    • Disproportionate consequences for minor transgressions

Inappropriate Questions or Comments During the Hiring Process

Discrimination against job candidates is as insidious as discrimination against employees and can be equally hard to identify. Whether a company systemically discriminates against certain groups in hiring won’t necessarily be revealed on the basis of one rejected applicant. But further investigation is warranted if the company’s workforce lacks diversity in race, gender, age or other protected characteristics. The scrutiny may uncover discriminatory intent or effect.

But discrimination may also subtly reveal itself in the interview process in the form of inappropriate questions or comments. Any inquiries about age, race, national origin, gender, religion, marital or family status, and disabilities are prohibited. But an interviewer may not be direct when probing these off-limits areas. Instead of asking, “How old are you?” they may ask, “When did you graduate from college?” Rather than asking, “What’s your ethnicity?” they might say, “That’s an interesting accent. Where is that from?”

No matter what form it takes, workplace discrimination is illegal. It unfairly deprives qualified individuals of opportunities or subjects them to hurtful and demeaning behavior or comments. No one should have to abide by or endure such treatment.

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

GettyImages-91783116 (1)

People quit their jobs for all sorts of reasons – better opportunities, shifting priorities, or the need to escape from uninspiring, frustrating or miserable situations. Whatever motivates workers to move to greener pastures, they typically want to leave with as little drama or animosity as possible.

They also want to depart with as much financial security and as many benefits as they can. Severance packages that include compensation and other considerations on your way out the door can provide that security. Many companies offer severance when they decide to let employees go or lay them off. But when employees quit for their own reasons, are they entitled to severance? If not, is there a way for them to get severance pay and benefits anyway?

Your Employer Probably Doesn’t Owe You Severance If You Quit Your Job

Federal and state laws impose many obligations on employers regarding pay and benefits – minimum wage, overtime pay, health insurance, COBRA and sick leave, among many others. But no law in Minnesota or any other state mandates that an employer provide severance to a departing employee, whether the employee was terminated or left voluntarily.

As such, your employer owes you nothing when you quit, other than such legally required benefits – unless your employment contract, collective bargaining agreement or company policy says otherwise.

How Do You Know If Your Employer Has Any Severance Obligations?

If you signed an employment agreement, review the terms carefully; ideally, with the assistance of an experienced employment lawyer. It may provide for compensation and benefits, even if you quit, so long as you meet certain conditions, such as giving sufficient notice or if you’re leaving for specified reasons. Similarly, review any provisions in your employee handbook regarding the employee exit process and any benefits available upon separation.

Why Would Your Employer Offer You Severance If It’s Not Required?

Even if your employment agreement or company policies don’t provide for severance, and your employer, therefore, owes you nothing, you may have more leverage to negotiate a severance agreement than you realize.

While your employer may be unlikely to offer severance out of the kindness of its corporate heart when you quit, it may offer or agree to a severance package out of self-interest. If you have potential discrimination or other legal claims, your employer may offer you severance pay or other benefits in exchange for you releasing such claims. Similarly, it may be important to your employer that you refrain from commenting publicly about an allegedly toxic or problematic work environment or practices and pay you to keep quiet. Effective July 1, 2023, your employer cannot negotiate for a non-compete agreement but may offer compensation in exchange for limits to your post-employment activities.

Don’t Quit Before Consulting With an Experienced Employment Attorney

Leaving a job is no small decision, and how you end your employment relationship is just as important as why you’re doing so. Don’t assume that you can’t get severance when you quit. If you put in your notice without first consulting an employment attorney, you risk leaving more than just your office keys on the table.

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

Pamela headshot

As a member of Halunen Law’s Employment Practice Group, attorney Pamela Johnson brings an impressive reputation for advocacy and achievement. Her clients benefit from her breadth of experience, stellar track record, and exceptional insight. She is particularly passionate about representing employees and strongly believes that everyone should be treated fairly, especially in the workplace. 

JusticeAge discrimination in the workplace is rarely open and obvious. An employer that wants to push an older worker out the door likely won’t come out and say, “We’re letting you go because you’re too old.” Instead, the employer may devise pretexts for termination, such as unjustified poor performance reviews.

Alternatively, an employer may make life so miserable and create a work environment so hostile that the employee feels she has no choice but to resign – a situation known as constructive discharge. Under some circumstances, this type of resignation can be treated as a wrongful discharge.

All three of these intertwined issues – age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge – were at issue in a recent case before the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court’s decision in Henry v. Independent School District #625 clarified how to prove constructive discharge under the state’s anti-discrimination statute, Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).

Henry’s Age Discrimination and Constructive Discharge Claims

In Henry, the plaintiff worked as a network technician for the defendant school district from 1997-2017. After 19 years of success in her position, and shortly after new management took over the district, Henry received her first negative performance review and was put on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Further negative performance reviews followed, and one of her managers told Henry he would recommend her termination. Henry, then 57 years old, subsequently resigned from her position.

Henry filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the school district, alleging that it engaged in disparate treatment age discrimination in violation of the MHRA and that the district’s discriminatory actions created a hostile work environment under the MHRA resulting in her constructive termination. The act provides that an employer may not, because of age, “discharge an employee,” or “discriminate against a person with respect to hiring, tenure, compensation, terms, upgrading, conditions, facilities, or privileges of employment.”

The district court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. While the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the hostile work environment claim, it reversed as to the discrimination claim, concluding that Henry had “presented sufficient evidence of disparate-treatment age discrimination to withstand summary judgment.”

‘Severe or Pervasive’ Harassment Needed to Claim Hostile Work Environment as Basis of Constructive Discharge

The Supreme Court noted that under the MHRA, a constructive discharge could arise from a hostile work environment or from discrimination in the form of disparate treatment, both of which the plaintiff alleged in this case.

Addressing the hostile work environment claim first, the court relied on its previous decisions to reiterate that a plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment must prove “severe or pervasive” harassment.

Henry presented ample evidence that district management targeted older workers for termination or resignation and engaged in other acts that could support a claim that it engaged in disparate treatment of employees because of their ages. The court found, though, that the conduct wasn’t the type of “verbal or physical harassment” that’s sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to “alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.”

In affirming the dismissal of the hostile work environment claim, the court noted that “Henry did not allege any age-based verbal or physical harassment. Instead, she alleged that due to her age, the School District unfairly placed her on a PIP with the purpose of forcing her to quit. This allegation is more accurately characterized as aged-based disparate treatment than a hostile work environment, which is a different theory of discrimination.”

Employer Intent, but Not Notice, Needed to Claim Disparate Treatment as Basis of Constructive Discharge

While the court rejected Henry’s claim that she was constructively discharged because of a hostile work environment, it analyzed whether she had presented sufficient evidence of disparate treatment to support a constructive discharge claim under that “theory of discrimination.”

The court found, and the district conceded, that there was enough evidence to support three of the four elements needed to show a prima-facie case of age discrimination based on disparate treatment: The plaintiff belonged to a protected class, she was qualified for the position, and circumstances existed to give rise to an inference of discrimination.

But the district argued that Henry didn’t provide evidence to support the fourth required element – that she suffered an “adverse employment action” – since she resigned instead of being terminated. The court, however, agreed “with federal courts and with Henry that a plaintiff can satisfy the adverse employment action element of a disparate treatment claim under the [MHRA] by demonstrating constructive discharge.”

The court noted that it had previously described constructive discharge as requiring “objectively intolerable working conditions that are created by the employer with the intention of forcing the employee to quit.” Elaborating on what constitutes “objectively intolerable working conditions” for a constructive discharge based on disparate treatment, the court held that it occurs when “an employer acts in a manner so as to have communicated to a reasonable employee that she will be terminated, and the plaintiff employee resigns.”

It then described what a plaintiff needs to prove to show the requisite “intention of forcing the employer to quit.” The court held that a plaintiff may satisfy this requirement in one of two ways:

    • by demonstrating that the employer deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intent of forcing the employee to quit; or
    • by demonstrating that resignation was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer’s deliberate actions.

The Supreme Court held that Henry had submitted enough evidence to support both of these requirements based on “her PIP and the circumstances surrounding it.” The court, therefore, reversed summary judgment on that claim and allowed Henry’s disparate treatment constructive discharge claim to proceed.

Notably, the court also held a plaintiff who can prove employer intent doesn’t need to notify the employer about the conditions or provide it with the opportunity to fix the issue before resigning. This holding is a repudiation of federal constructive discharge cases that include this requirement. In so deciding, the Court emphasized that Minnesota courts “are not bound by federal law in our application of the Human Rights Act.”

Forced to Resign Because of Prohibited Discrimination? Contact Halunen Law Today for a Free Consultation.

As the Supreme Court neatly summarized, “a disparate-treatment-based constructive discharge can occur where, due to the employer’s illegal discrimination in the form of unfavorable treatment based on the employee’s protected status, ‘the handwriting [is] on the wall and the axe was about to fall.’”

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

susan m coler employment attorney

A Partner at Halunen Law, Susan Coler is a member of the Halunen Law False Claims Act (FCA)/ Whistleblower Practice Group. She represents whistleblowers who challenge illegal corporate conduct, particularly fraud against the government. As an MSBA Labor and Employment Law Specialist, Susan has also brought successful retaliation claims in connection with FCA/qui tam cases and as stand-alone actions.

If your employer has offered you a severance package as part of a Reduction in Force or RIF, you first need to understand that companies typically claim that RIFS are necessary for supposed financial reasons. In truth, though, RIFS are often used to get rid of older, more expensive employees and may constitute age discrimination. So – before you EVER accept an employer’s severance offer, it is wise to FIRST ask the following questions to determine whether you have any leverage in negotiating a better severance:GettyImages-183828435 (2)

    1. Are there younger, less senior, less qualified people performing similar job functions who were not subject to the RIF?
    2. Is the reason you received for your selection for elimination suspect in some way; does the reason seem untrue because other options would make more business sense or because you have engaged in any activity, such as whistleblowing, that could make you a target in a RIF?
    3. Does the OWBPA Notice1 that was attached to your severance offer show a disproportionate number of older employees being impacted by the RIF?
    4. Does the selection criteria claimed in the OWBPA Notice make sense or is there a basis for you to challenge the criteria by comparing yourself with employees not selected and showing objectively how you were more qualified for the position?
    5. Did the employer provide preferential treatment to younger, less senior, less qualified employees who were not impacted (such as a transfer, promotion, demotion, reassignment, etc.)?

If you have reliable, objective evidence to challenge your employer’s decision to select you for a RIF, you may have leverage to get a better deal and it would make sense to contact a lawyer BEFORE you execute any severance agreement.  If you have age-related claims (or if you are a whistleblower, or suspect your employer has other illegal motives), an experienced employment lawyer can sometimes use this leverage to negotiate significantly more compensation in exchange for your agreement to release your employer from your prospective claims.

Maximizing leverage requires top notch negotiating skills and a thorough knowledge of the law.  Halunen Law knows what motivates employers to pay more because we have successfully negotiated severance agreements for over 30 years.   Our team of lawyers takes the time to gather the facts, create an action plan and demonstrate to employers why they need to pay our clients more—typically substantially more.

If you think you have leverage to challenge a severance, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

1Federal law requires that an employer provide employees being selected for a RIF with a disclosure that lists the names of ALL employees selected and not selected for the RIF; their job classification and their ages.  If you have not received this disclosure from your employer, you MUST request it.

Executive-level severance packages can be highly complex, with much at stake. Halunen Law’s employment attorneys have a depth of expertise and success in negotiating these sensitive cases at the highest levels. 

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

Coming off record low unemployment rates, businesses are increasingly shedding workers across the economy, affecting employees at companies ranging from 3M to Twitter to Yankee Candle. Fortunately, the law affords laid off individuals certain rights and protections, as summarized below: 

1. Am I Entitled to Severance?

In many countries, terminated employees are entitled by law to specified amounts of severance pay. (France, for instance, requires employees be paid one fourth their monthly salary for each year of service up to ten, one third for each year beyond that.) The United States takes a different approach. With limited exceptions applicable to employees (1) covered by Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”) governed severance plans provided by some, mostly larger employers as an employee benefit, (2) having an employment agreement containing contractual severance, (3) in a union shop governed by a collective bargaining agreement with such protections, and (4) over the age of 40 (discussed below), nobody is legally owed a dime in severance.

2. If I’m Offered Severance, Should I Accept It?

Although not required to do so, most employers offer those laid-off severance pay as a matter of course, in exchange for their signing a comprehensive release of legal claims arising from the employment relationship. Businesses do this for practical financial reasons, not out of the goodness of their hearts. They see severance agreements as cheap insurance against expensive lawsuits. 

Before agreeing to accept the severance being offered, it’s important to ask yourself whether co-workers spared the axe were more appropriate candidates for layoff. Did they have lower levels of ability? Shorter tenures with the company? A history of employment misconduct? In such instances, the layoff may constitute “pretext” under the law, meaning a mask for unlawful action. 

In addition, it’s important to ask a series of other questions. 

  • Did you report to management or a government agency any violations of law or breaches of contract in the period preceding your termination? If so, you may have legal claims under state and federal whistleblower protection laws, including the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
  • Are you a member of a legally protected class of employees? The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation and other characteristics. 
  • Did you recently seek time off for medical reasons or in conjunction with the birth or adoption of a child? The law provides certain protections for such individuals.
  • Were you about to vest in some right or benefit, such as eligibility to participate in a pension plan? If so, ERISA’s Section 510 may provide you with additional legal protections.

Employers sometimes use layoffs as a cover to get rid of workers who do not “fit in” with some preferred demographic, or who are seen as excessively expensive owing to medical costs. If you suspect that this happened to you, it is important to speak with an experienced employment law attorney before accepting any severance.

3. Am I Entitled to Written Notices or Severance Pay?

The federal Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”) requires employers provide employees at least 60 days advance notice of their termination if they are let go as a result of a plant closing or a “mass” layoff, meaning one affecting 50 or more workers. While advance notice is helpful in planning and seeking out alternative employment, the WARN Act provides no right to separation or severance pay.

The federal Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), by contrast, requires employers pay terminated employees 40 years old and above “consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual is already entitled” as a condition of waiving age discrimination claims. In group terminations, the OWBPA requires employers provide all employees, not just older ones, a notice listing the ages both of all people laid off and those retained within the group of employees considered for layoff (the “decisional unit”). The OWBPA also requires employers to provide terminated employees 40 and older at least 21 days (45 days in group layoffs) in which to decide whether to accept or reject the offered severance. Through these measures, Congress intended to help employees make an informed decision as to whether age may have played a factor in their selection for termination. Failure to abide by the OWBPA’s notice and disclosure requirements will void any release of claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

4. What About Health Insurance?

Most Americans obtain health insurance through their employment. Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), employers must inform employees upon termination for any reason of their right to remain on the employer’s health insurance plan for a period of up to 18 months. This right may be exercised within 60 days of the end of employment. Under COBRA, the employee is responsible for paying both the employer and employee portions of the insurance premium, which in many cases will render the insurance unaffordable in comparison to policies available on the Affordable Healthcare Act Exchange. As part of a severance negotiation, employment attorneys are sometimes able to negotiate the employer’s payment of the full COBRA cost, in addition to additional compensation of claims where evidence of unlawfulness has been identified. 

Special Note on Age Discrimination

As a matter of practical experience, workers aged 40 and above tend to be laid off in greater numbers than their younger counterparts. This results in part from the fact that older, more tenured employees typically earn higher salaries than new or recent, generally younger hires. A financially struggling company may decide that to remain in business, it’s necessary to reduce the largest single expenditure for most businesses: payroll. This economic rationale may not fly where a targeted older worker has superior value based on skill and experience. This is easiest to quantify for commission-based sales employees, but may be the case for any number of other professions. 

Finally, some organizations select for termination older employees who reach upper managerial levels for potentially discriminatory reasons, including to make room for younger workers or meet diversity goals. The law protects not just women and racial minorities. Discrimination against white males, sometimes referred to as “reverse discrimination,” is equally unlawful. Proving discrimination is seldom easy, but if you feel you’ve been fired or demoted for a discriminatory reason, make sure to contact an employment lawyer. 

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

Watch Charles’ interview on CBS News Minnesota’s Good Question segment: “What are your rights if you’re laid off?”

As a physician, your primary concern is the health and safety of your patients. Sometimes, this means speaking out when you witness violations of healthcare laws or unethical practices. Unfortunately, the act of reporting such violations can sometimes put your job and career in jeopardy. Fortunately, federal and state laws provide protections for physicians who blow the whistle on illegal or unethical conduct.

The False Claims Act (FCA) is a federal law that allows individuals to sue on behalf of the government when there is evidence of fraud against federal programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The FCA provides incentives for whistleblowers, including physicians, to come forward by offering a portion of the recovered funds as a reward. Additionally, the FCA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report violations.

In addition to the FCA, there are several state laws that protect physician whistleblowers. For example, Minnesota has a Whistleblower Act that provides protection for employees who report illegal or unethical conduct. This includes physicians who report healthcare fraud, patient safety violations, or other forms of wrongdoing.

It’s important to understand your rights as a physician whistleblower. Here are some key points to keep in mind:

    1. You have the right to report violations: If you witness illegal or unethical conduct, you have the right to report it without fear of retaliation.
    2. You have recourse if you experience retaliation: Federal and state laws prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers and provide legal remedies if you are terminated, demoted, or experience any other forms of discrimination.
    3. You may be entitled to a reward: The FCA provides financial incentives for whistleblowers who report fraud against the government.
    4. You should document everything: Keep detailed records of any violations you witness, including when and how you reported them, and any actions taken in response.
    5. You may need legal representation: If you experience retaliation for blowing the whistle, you may need the help of an experienced employment attorney to protect your rights.

Reporting violations is not only your right as a physician, it’s also your responsibility to protect the health and safety of your patients. By understanding your rights as a whistleblower, you can help ensure that illegal or unethical conduct is brought to light and stopped. If you need assistance in reporting violations or protecting your rights as a whistleblower, Halunen Law attorneys are highly experienced in whistleblower laws and can guide you through the process. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your concerns.

It is daunting to consider blowing the whistle on illegal employer conduct. Our attorneys have years of experience representing whistleblowers from almost every industry.  We can guide you—including making internal reports to your employer—to protect your legal interests and protect you from retaliation. If you are a whistleblower who has experienced retaliation, we can seek justice on your behalf. We represent whistleblowers on a contingency basis, so there is no cost unless we win. Contact our office today for a free, confidential consultation.

Since 2016, banking and financial services giant Wells Fargo has paid more than $6 billion in fines and restitution for a wide range of fraudulent and illegal activities that affected its customers. In December 2022, Wells Fargo added billions more in penalties to its extraordinary record of misconduct. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has ordered it to pay more than $2 billion to consumers and a $1.7 billion civil penalty for legal violations that led to billions of dollars in financial harm to its customers, including the loss of their vehicles and homes.

While certainly a leader of the pack, Wells Fargo is not alone in engaging in fraud, dishonesty and other wrongful or illegal conduct. All too often, this activity manages to fly under the radar and continues without consequences or repercussions. Sometimes, however, people who become aware of such acts – often employees – feel compelled to take a stand and call it out. These brave individuals, called “whistleblowers,” will report violations of the law or expose other disreputable or illegal activities at great risk to their careers and livelihoods. Fortunately, the law not only protects whistleblowers from retaliation and firing, but also establishes mechanisms through which many whistleblowers can obtain compensation for their selfless efforts.

Protections From Retaliation and Potential Rewards for Whistleblowers

Wells Fargo’s illegal acts were uncovered because of a combination of consumer complaints and internal whistleblowers who reported the misconduct through the CFPB’s whistleblower program. The program is just one of many established by law and administered by federal agencies and state governments to encourage whistleblowers to come forward with information regarding illegal activities.

That encouragement generally comes in two forms. Like the CFPB’s program, almost all whistleblower programs and statutes offer protection by prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who report misconduct or assist the government in any actions or proceedings arising from such activities. These anti-retaliation laws typically allow victims of prohibited retaliation to seek back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory damages and other remedies from their employers.

The other way these programs encourage whistleblowers to speak up is the potential for them to receive a reward—often a percentage of any amounts recovered by the government as a result of the information they provide. That share can amount to a substantial payday for a victorious whistleblower. But, as is the case with the CFPB, not all programs directly provide for whistleblower rewards. However, conduct reported to the CFPB may fall under other reward statutes such as the False Claims Act, the SEC Whistleblower Program, or the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act (FIAFEA).
Many whistleblower actions involve exposing corporate misconduct that defrauds federal or state governments, costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year. But plenty of whistleblowers report wrongdoing that directly harms consumers and the general public, as seen in the Wells Fargo case and other high-profile matters. No matter the nature of a company’s malfeasance, those who are brave enough to do the right thing under difficult circumstances and call it out deserve respect, gratitude and support.

Halunen Law: 25 Years of Standing Up for Whistleblowers

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

Few crimes attract as much scrutiny, enforcement efforts and prosecutions by the federal government as money laundering does. And the very nature of money laundering – concealing the source of ill-gotten funds through myriad financial tricks and transactions – makes it one of the more challenging crimes to uncover. That’s why law enforcement often relies on courageous whistleblowers to report and expose such activity. Now, under recently passed federal legislation, those who blow the whistle on money laundering stand a greater chance of receiving compensation for their efforts if they lead to the recovery of ill-gotten funds.

Signed into law as part of the omnibus spending bill in December 2022, the federal Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Whistleblower Improvement Act expands whistleblower rewards and strengthens protections under a previously established AML Whistleblower Program overseen by the U.S. Treasury Department. That program was riddled with loopholes and exceptions that limited its effectiveness and undermined the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward.

Guaranteed Minimum Award for Eligible AML Whistleblowers

As with many, but not all, whistleblower programs, the AML Whistleblower Program offered the promise of financial rewards to individuals who provided information about money laundering activities. But unlike other programs, the AML program didn’t guarantee a minimum amount of compensation for whistleblowers.

For example, the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) program provides that eligible whistleblowers receive 10-30% of the amounts recovered. The AML program, on the other hand, contained no such guarantee. Rather, it only put a limit (30%) on the amount of money a whistleblower could obtain. This meant that an individual whose actions resulted in the federal government’s recovery of tens of millions of dollars could wind up receiving $1 for their efforts – or nothing at all. This toothless reward program hardly made it worth the risk for whistleblowers who put their careers, livelihoods and reputations on the line by reporting illegal activities. Indeed, few whistleblowers came forward under the program, and not a single reward was given during the two years of its existence.

The AML Whistleblower Improvement Act remedies this deficiency by guaranteeing that a qualifying whistleblower receive “not less than 10 percent” of amounts recovered or collected in a government enforcement action. The act also establishes a self-sustaining fund for whistleblower awards financed by the amounts collected in whistleblower-assisted money laundering cases. Previously, the law contained no mechanism for funding the program.

AML Expanded to Include Whistleblowers Who Report Sanctions Violations

The act also expands the AML program to include violations of U.S. sanctions laws such as those imposed on Russian oligarchs after that country’s invasion of Ukraine. This means that rewards and protections are now available to whistleblowers who report this type of illegal conduct.

Protections Against Retaliation

The new and prior AML whistleblower laws protect whistleblowers against retaliation by their employers for reporting illegal activities or otherwise assisting the government in its anti-money laundering efforts. A victim of prohibited retaliation can seek back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory damages and other remedies from their employer.

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

GettyImages-655913700-scaledA shocking, but all too familiar, pattern has emerged in corporate America as businesses have responded to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Like never before, 50+ year olds in executive positions are being ousted from their jobs.  Another spike in an epidemic decades long.  So what’s going on?

It appears that the time has come for a major reshuffling or readjustment within the leadership ranks of U.S. Fortune 500 companies.  Baby Boomers and Gen Xers (ages 50-75) are being replaced by substantially younger, lower paid employees through forced retirements, RIFs, and reorganizations.  The new mantra of the day seems to be: out with the old, in with the new.  New blood, new ideas, new direction—it’s where its at.  Forget loyalty or years of successful performance—it appears to be of no moment.

The reality is that employers think Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are costing them too much money—pure and simple—including handsome pay packages (high base salaries, stock options, restricted stock awards, short and long term incentives, substantial bonuses, and the like) that often reach well into the six figures. As more senior employees, many of these executives also benefit from very generous pension plans that have grown over their 20-30-year careers.  So, from a business perspective, it becomes quite evident who best to eliminate when the corporation sets out to cut costs.

The modus operandi most commonly employed by corporations to rid themselves of 50+ leaders is what’s called a Reduction in Force (RIF) or a Reorganization (Reorg)—both mechanisms typically involve the elimination of people through elimination of their positions.  Under the law, the decisional process for making these employment decisions must be based upon objective criteria or factors that are neutral.  An employee’s protected status, like age, cannot play any role in the process.  However, it almost always does.

As an example, let’s say Acme Company, a 5,000 employee manufacturing facility, is seeking to reduce labor costs in order to increase profit and shareholder return.   Upon review of its workforce, Acme determines it is paying its director-level employees substantially when considering total compensation.  Specifically, it is paying employees in this job classification $125,000 per year over market.  It is determined that the reason for this is because the average age of an Acme Company Director is 58 years old, with an average seniority of 25 years with the company.  There are 20 Directors at Acme.   Acme would not be able to terminate these people without the risk of an age discrimination lawsuit unless it was able to replace them with employees roughly the same age.  This is not a likely scenario because it would require paying the replacements the same as the replaced Directors.  This reality would defeat the entire labor reduction cost objective.  So, what to do?

Acme may choose to simply eliminate the Director position altogether and terminate all employees who hold those positions.  By elimination of the position, Acme is able remove the age of the replacements as a consideration.  Or, instead, Acme can simply create supposedly “new” positions that have no incumbents.  Of course, the “new” positions are not new at all, but are rather the same job with slight cosmetic differences (e.g., a new job title or minor change in job duties).  Acme calls this a “restructure” or “reorganization,” and believes it can get away with filling the position with anyone it wants—including much younger employees, to whom it will pay a lot less money.  Problem solved—or is it?

Actually, Acme’s problems have likely just begun.  State and federal laws prohibit using any protected status, like age,  in making any employment decisions—whether promotion, pay, or termination.  The lawyers at Halunen Law have seen it all.  We have successfully challenged virtually every form of illegal discrimination and retaliation in the workplace across most industries.

If you feel you’ve experienced illegal action in your workplace, we encourage you to submit a Case Review Form to our firm. One of our attorneys will review your information, and you’ll receive a response from our firm in a timely manner. There is no charge for this confidential process. And, if we take your case, as a contingency-based law firm, there is no cost unless we win.

We’re here to help you navigate your lawful rights and ensure you get the treatment you deserve. Together, we can hold employers accountable and create a fairer workplace for everyone.

© 2026 Halunen Law | Minneapolis Employment Attorneys