We hear all too often from clients…
“I just got laid off, and my employer wants me to sign a severance agreement. They gave me a big chart with a list of people’s positions and ages on it. I’m confused, and I’m not sure what to do next.”
If you are an older worker (defined as age 40 or older), stop right there! You likely have a lot of questions in your head right now. We’re here to help you find some answers.
The #MeToo movement has shined light on sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace and work-related events. However, there is still a value in increasing knowledge, training, and education when it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace.
In light of this, it’s vital that employees take the time to understand what sexual harassment and sexual assault are in the workplace, and how certain employment situations may make them more vulnerable than others. As an employee, it is important to know that such misconduct can happen to anyone, and if it happens to you, you are not alone – we are here to help.
As an employment law attorney, I am often asked, “Can I record a conversation with my employer without saying that I am recording it?” The answer depends on whether the state you are recording in requires a one-party or two-party consent and whether your employer has a company policy that prohibits employees from recording conversations.
In a recent case in the Minneapolis school district, an employee was let go from her position. The employee complained to the school system’s equal opportunity division regarding what happened, and she alleged that workplace discrimination, harassment, and a number of financial improprieties were going on within the school system that led to her firing.
The employee was reportedly told that the school system’s division would investigate the matter and thus preserve her rights concerning this complaint. Because of this alleged promise, the employee then waited 300 days before filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
A few years back, a news article reported that a meeting of corporate defense attorneys had called out whistleblowers as primarily “disgruntled employees.” This remark reflects a too-common perspective that whistleblowers are a nuisance rather than a contributor to the well-being of our businesses and our government. Far from being a nuisance, whistleblowers are champions of ethical conduct and play a powerful role in prodding businesses to do what is right. Are whistleblowers often disgruntled employees? Of course. Read More…
A new case decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court provides additional support to employees with disabilities—it clarifies that employers cannot terminate disabled employees who request an accommodation without a “thorough communication” and “documented good faith efforts” to see if the accommodation would actually pose an undue hardship.
Under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified workers with disabilities to allow them to perform the essential functions of their jobs. But what do these terms mean?
It is important that employees are able to report improper or dangerous conditions that they observe in their workplaces. When someone is aware that fraudulent or dangerous practices could negatively impact the public, they are often uniquely positioned to report the problem. Unfortunately, an employee who is aware of a violation of the law may be afraid that if they report it, they could face retaliation and be terminated or face other negative employment actions.
This is the claim made by two employees of a for-profit Minnesota college. They both claim that because they had been open about what they viewed as serious problems with the admissions and accreditation process, they were subjected to negative employment actions. Both employees brought their claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court struck another blow against consumers and employees in the case of Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. Yet again the Court reasoned backward from the result it wanted to reach and went out of its way to find in favor of a corporate defendant – at the expense of individual citizens – by reading into a contract language that did not exist.
In 2014, a Minnesota demographic survey conducted on State employees showed that less than 4% self-identified as having a disability. When compared to the presence of employees with a disability statewide and nationwide, 7.9% and 10.5% respectively, it was evident that the State’s workforce did not reflect the diversity of Minnesota’s population of individuals with a disability.
As a result, former Governor Dayton’s office issued Executive Order 14-14, which issued a goal for State agencies to increase employment for people with disabilities to at least 7% by August 2018. Fast forward four years, on August 29, 2018, former Governor Mark Dayton’s office announced that Minnesota met its goal to have 7% of its workforce identified as having a disability. This modest increase of individuals with a disability in the State’s workforce can be attributed in no small part to the implementation of a trial work program, Connect 700.
You received a telephone call from a prospective employer, and they want to hire you! You are ecstatic – this is the dream job you’ve always wanted! The employer goes on to tell you that that the “offer of employment is contingent upon you passing a drug and alcohol test.”
You stop dead in your tracks…
…Am I required to submit to the test?
…What if my current medications impact my test results?
…What happens if I do not pass?
…What should I do?