Discrimination

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

hostile-work-environment-lawyer-halunen-lawA headline story in the New York Times recently read “When Having a Baby and Losing Your Job Collide.” The article discussed the recent phenomenon of large corporations, predominantly but not exclusively in the tech and media industries, offering lavish benefits and perks to attract quality workers in a tight labor market. Escalating competition for talent required companies provide more and offer more with each passing quarter.    

Those days are apparently over.  With massive layoffs by some of the country’s top tech firms including Microsoft and Alphabet (Google’s corporate parent), affected workers are experiencing whiplash after receiving a pink slip they never expected.  According to the article, large numbers of these laid off workers, men and women alike, had recently experienced the birth of a child, a time normally filled with hope and joy, and were taking advantage of voluntarily enacted paid parental leave policies.  Employers adopted such generous benefits not out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of greed.  We know this retrospectively because these same companies appear to be targeting employees who availed themselves of paid parenting leave when implementing their layoffs.  Sorry to break the news, employees were used.  

State Laws: 

To be clear – it is not unlawful for an employer to lay off an employee who happens to be on parental leave when a company-wide layoff occurs.  However, an employer may not terminate an employee as part of a layoff because he or she is on maternity or paternity leave.  As an example, your employer may think it’s weak for a male employee to take paternity leave to help his spouse for a few months, and therefore uses a layoff to get rid of that employee.  Many states make it illegal to terminate an employee because they’ve taken maternity or paternity leave, as bonding between a newborn and a parent is a benefit to society and should be encouraged.  In these states, an employee discharged for taking time off can bring an action for damages against their employer.   By inducing an employee to sign a severance agreement containing a release of claims for a minimal amount, the employer gets litigation insurance on the cheap – saving it potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages that a judge or jury might otherwise assess in a meritorious legal action. With this leverage in hand, of course employees should negotiate with their employers to get a better deal. Check these links out for additional information: 

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/79th2017/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=29512&fileDownloadName=0330ab266_ParentalLeaveReportMay05.pdf  

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-state-of-paid-family-and-medical-leave-in-the-u-s-in-2023/ 

Federal laws: 

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) makes it illegal for employers to fire, refuse to hire, or deny a woman a promotion because she is pregnant. The law also provides that an employer must treat a pregnant woman the same way it would treat any other employee who becomes sick or temporarily disabled. If the employer provides benefits such as paid sick days or disability, it must cover pregnancy related disability and recovery from childbirth. The PDA does not guarantee job protection; it only guarantees a pregnant employee’s right to be treated the same as any other employee with a medical condition.  

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides for job-protected, unpaid leave of up to twelve weeks after the birth or adoption of a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, the employee must be restored to the same or a substantially equivalent position. It prohibits any form of interference with or retaliation from use of necessary leave. In order to qualify under the FMLA, you must have been employed by your employer for over one year and have worked for at least 1250 hours over the course of that previous year. The FMLA only covers employees at companies with 50 or more workers. 

So, now what? You believed your employer when it promised you an elaborate array of amazing benefits and you accepted its job offer. Then, months or years later, you take the time off promised (and encouraged), only to be followed up a termination because the company decided to “restructure” or “eliminate” or “right-size.” Note:  these terms are often code language for “let’s get rid of people we don’t want around anymore.” Typically your employer will offer you some minimal severance, like a few weeks to a few months of base pay. To repeat, they’re only doing this to buy a release from you so you can’t sue. Know your rights. As the expression goes, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.” 

So, if you are in this situation, it is wise to consult with an attorney before accepting any severance. You may have leverage that will allow you to respectfully decline the relative peanuts being offered and demand more. People typically  think that the severance offers are non-negotiable. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your employer should not get the last word on how you depart company. 

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.

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

A majority of states, 38 to date plus four United States territories, have enacted statutes legalizing the consumption of cannabis to treat specified medical conditions. Some of these jurisdictions provide legal protections in the workplace for medical cannabis/marijuana users. Minnesota is one. That is, individuals in Minnesota with a qualifying medical condition (which includes chronic pain, cancer, seizures and nausea) may consume cannabis purchased from an authorized dispensary if they obtain a prescription from their health care practitioner, submit a valid application to the Department of Health for inclusion on the registry and obtain a medical cannabis card. This blog discusses the scope of protections for these individuals under Minnesota’s medical cannabis statute and, relatedly, rights arising under the state’s stringent drug testing law.

Lawful Consumables

Even without a specific anti-discrimination provision, participants of the Minnesota’s medical cannabis program would be protected against termination under the state’s “lawful consumables” statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.938. This law predates the medical cannabis statute by two decades and prohibits any employer from terminating or refusing to hire an employee for “engag[ing] in the use or enjoyment of lawful consumable products,” provided the use takes place off premises and outside of working hours. Principle among lawful consumables are alcohol and tobacco. Illicit drugs, naturally, fall outside that law’s protections.

Medical Cannabis Workplace Protections

To eliminate any doubt about the legal status of medical cannabis users, the Minnesota legislature included in the THC Therapeutic Research Act (“TTRA”), Minn. Stat. § 152.21, protections applicable to employment (as well as housing and education). Specifically, “an employer may not discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment, or otherwise penalize a person” because the person is enrolled in the program or has tested positive for cannabis following lawful use. Two notable exceptions exist: 

  • When an employee tests positive after consuming medical cannabis during working hours or when impaired at work; and 
  • When hiring or failing to terminate an employee on the registry would “violate federal law or regulations or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations.” 

Unfortunately, the latter exception has created misconceptions among employers who, as a condition of contracting with the federal government, must comply with the federal Drug Free Workplace Act (“DFWA”), 41 U.S.C. § 8102. Businesses large and small erroneously believe that DFWA compliance precludes their hiring of participants in Minnesota’s medical cannabis program because—despite a sea change in public acceptance—cannabis remains a prohibited Schedule I drug under federal law. No exception exists for products lawfully prescribed under the TTRA and other jurisdictions’ medical marijuana statutes.

In fact, the DFWA merely requires that government contractors ensure that “unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the person’s workplace.” Nowhere does it prohibit an employee’s use of cannabis, legally under state law or even illegally, off premises and outside working hours. 

Plaintiffs alleging discrimination under the TTRA may recover compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and, in egregious situations, punitive damages. The same facts may also give rise to liability under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn. Stat. § 363A.01, based on disability discrimination. Although lacking punitive damages, the MHRA allows for trebling of compensatory damages. The MHRA’s liability threshold is higher than the TTRA’s, requiring a plaintiff show an “adverse employment action” (e.g., termination, demotion, refusal to hire). Under the TTRA’s more lenient “penalization” standard, actions as minor as a written warning or transfer from an office to a cubicle may trigger liability. 

Drug Testing and Medical Cannabis

Minnesota has one of the nation’s most stringent drug testing statutes, titled the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (“DATWA”), Minn. Stat. § 181.950. 

If you are subject to drug testing at work, it is important to remember that DATWA authorizes testing only pursuant to a written policy provided to employees prior to testing, which has also been posted in the workplace. Before being made to undergo a drug test, a Minnesota employee additionally must sign an acknowledgement stating that he/she has “seen” the employer’s drug testing policy. 

Moreover, drug testing is allowed only under very specific conditions. They include: (1) job applicant testing following the receipt of a conditional offer of employment; (2) a reasonable suspicion of intoxication or after a work-related accident; and (3) random testing in “safety sensitive” positions. (As an important aside, DATWA does not apply to certain employees involved in interstate trucking, railway workers, pipeline workers, air traffic controllers and others subject to testing under an applicable federal drug testing statue). 

Any employee who tests positive must be given the option of obtaining a confirmatory re-test at his/her expense, and cannot be terminated from employment unless first provided the option of enrolling in a treatment or counseling program. If an employee successfully completes the program, the employer must allow him/her to return to work. Finally, the employer must provide written notice of an employee’s right to explain a positive test. The medical cannabis statute specifically references DATWA for this purpose, stating that a participant may present “verification of enrollment in the patient registry as part of the employee’s explanation” for any such positive test. 

The above is just a summary of DATWA’s many stringent requirements. Owing to its complexity, many employers routinely fail to comply with the statute.

If you are a medical cannabis user who has been subject to discipline following a work-related drug test and would like more information about your legal rights, don’t hesitate to contact the experienced employment lawyers at Halunen Law.

Employee rights and protections can be difficult to understand and navigate. If you believe you’ve experienced illegal activity in your workplace, you need an experienced legal team in your corner.  Halunen Law employment attorneys are deeply committed to fighting for employee rights and have an impressive record of getting results for those they represent. We represent clients on a contingency basis, so there is no cost unless we win. Contact our office today for a free, confidential consultation.

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

A new study from researchers at the University of New Hampshire and the University of Nebraska has determined that men in executive leadership positions receive over $500,000 more in severance compensation than women. The study, recently published in the Journal of Business and Psychology, examines severance packages at the executive level through a series of analyses focusing on large, publicly traded American companies.  

Researchers established that executive severance agreements, which can include benefits received by the employee upon termination “without cause,” can be susceptible to bias due to the opacity and subjectivity in how they are determined. Such ambiguity opens the door to preconceived notions and implicit biases linking gender to employment performance, personality traits, and expectations. 

Examining the Findings

Jennifer Griffith, the Morrison Fellow of Diversity at the University of New Hampshire’s Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, noted that in this study researchers found that “male executives are more likely than their female counterparts to be rewarded in their severance agreements when the company’s stock value increased under their leadership.” She further stated that “for women, how well the company was doing had less impact on the value of their severance package. This shows that performance is attributed to other organizational or market factors when women lead and could make it more difficult for women in executive leadership roles to demonstrate their value to the firm.” 

The study found that women executives were more likely to be undervalued, while male executives at similar ranks were more likely to be over-rewarded, regardless of company performance. Women were also found to be at a disadvantage in negotiating better severance packages and were often met with stronger opposition than men in negotiations due to preconceived notions of gender norms and beliefs. While previous studies have assessed the gender pay gap at the executive level as it relates to executive severance, this new study highlights the need for employers to take a more well-rounded assessment of compensation, and the need to pay closer attention to how the severance process can deprive certain groups of equal treatment. 

Protect yourself from gender discrimination

Halunen Law’s attorneys are experts in the matters of gender discrimination in the workplace. If you are a woman in executive leadership who is being offered a severance agreement that is not in line with your contributions to the company, you want to consult with attorneys who have this expertise. Working closely with you, we develop an approach that puts you in the strongest possible position to obtain better and equitable compensation and benefits, as well as to minimize any restrictions on your post-departure professional activities and opportunities. Halunen Law will vigorously advocate for the severance you deserve. Please contact Halunen Law or call us at (612) 605-4098 for a free consultation.

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 are a C-suite executive facing a severance package as part of your employment termination, contact our office today for a confidential consultation. We represent clients on a contingency basis, so there is no cost unless we win.

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

laid off over 40 severance agreement rights halunenlaw.com

Older workers’ experience, insights, and institutional knowledge can be valuable assets to a business. All too often, however, companies see older workers as a liability, leaving more seasoned employees vulnerable to prohibited age discrimination, including wrongful termination. That’s why federal law provides older workers, who are laid off over 40, with robust protections, rights, and remedies in the event of layoffs, downsizings, or firings.

If you’re over 40 and receive a pink slip and proposed severance agreement, it’s critical that you understand your rights and what the requirements are under the federal Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

Most Older Workers Have Seen or Experienced Age Discrimination

In a culture that often venerates youth over experience, workplace age discrimination is an unfortunate and common occurrence. Approximately 453,000 American workers filed age discrimination claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission between 1997 and 2020, while about one in five workers over 40 and one in four workers over age 60 believe they have experienced age discrimination in the workplace, according to a Senior Living survey.

Wrong and illegal as age discrimination is, employers may decide to flaunt the law and terminate older employers anyway. Rapidly changing technologies and a hypercompetitive landscape can create the perception that youth gives businesses a competitive advantage. And to create a subterfuge for making decisions based on age, a company may mask its illegal motive by claiming a need to “reorganize,” “downsize,” or implement a “reduction in force” (RIF). Even if a claimed reorganization is real, many companies use this excuse to illegally jettison older employees, including managers and those in the C-Suite.

But rare is the company that will admit it’s terminating an employee because of age. Such firings usually come under other pretenses — often using common “code words” like “reorganization”, “position elimination”, “reduction in force” (RIF), and “moving in a different direction”— and those let go may not realize the real reason behind the layoffs is about making room for younger employees. Then, to minimize the risk of future litigation, many employers offer severance packages to departing employees and executives. These packages are offered in exchange for a release or waiver of any employment-related claims, including age discrimination, and in hopes that employees will sign the severance agreement without considering whether their termination is the result of age discrimination.

Legal Help With Your Proposed Severance Agreement

We have employment lawyers who are Older Workers Benefit Protection Act experts ready to meet with you for a free, confidential consultation.Want to make sure your employer has followed the law and that you are not leaving potential claims on the table? Contact us today.

Severance Requirements for Older Workers Under the OWBPA

Recognizing that employers were pressuring older workers to sign waivers without having adequate information or time to evaluate their situations, Congress passed the OWBPA into law in 1990 as an amendment to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The OWBPA applies to workers age 40 and over at companies with at least 20 employees. It addresses age discrimination in several ways, including requiring employers to follow specific procedures when asking employees to waive claims under the ADEA as part of severance agreements. The purpose is to ensure the release or waiver is knowing and voluntary. If an employer doesn’t follow these requirements, any waiver that employees signed may be void and unenforceable.

For employers covered by the OWBPA, a valid waiver of claims for any employee age 40 and over must meet certain requirements to ensure the employee has an adequate understanding of what rights and claims they are waiving and sufficient time to gain that understanding. Specifically:

    • The employer must not use undue pressure to get the worker to sign a waiver of the individual’s rights;
    • The proposed waiver must be succinct, accurate, and reasonably understandable to an ordinary person;
    • Any release of claims must be in writing;
    • The waiver must explicitly state that the employee is releasing their claims under the ADEA;
    • The employer must encourage the employee to consult with an attorney before signing the agreement; and
    • The employer must give the employee up to 21 days to consider the severance offer (or 45 days if the termination is part of a layoff of more than one employee). Upon signing, the employee has seven days to revoke their signature.

In addition to the above, an employer claiming to implement a reduction in force, defined as a termination of two or more employees, must also provide the terminated employee with the following information:

    • The job titles and ages of any other workers in the employee’s unit or department who are also being laid off;
    • The job titles and ages of all other workers in the employee’s unit or department who are being retained, that is, who are not being laid off; and
    • The eligibility factors used to determine who was laid off and who was retained.

The purpose of this requirement is to provide the employee with information they can use to evaluate whether older employees have been targeted for termination, whether a particular employee has been targeted, or whether the RIF appears to be implemented fairly. In this situation, the advice of an experienced employment attorney is particularly important because they can help employees analyze the information provided and decide whether to pursue legal action against the employer or accept the severance and agree to the waiver.

Leverage Our Legal Expertise to Help Shape Your Future

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.

Image Credit: dragana991  / Getty Images

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

proposed severance package considerations halunenlaw.comUnexpected or unwanted career transitions can be a time of anxiety and opportunity. If you’re an executive or other high-ranking employee who finds yourself asked or forced to leave your current position, it’s important to make smart, informed decisions about how to do so. This includes careful consideration of any proposed severance package from your soon-to-be-former employer.

There’s much more to a severance package than how many weeks or months of pay you’ll get, as important as that is. A severance agreement is not only about what your employer gives you, but also what the organization expects in return. If you’re not careful or fail to consult an executive and professional severance attorney before signing on the dotted line, you could lose out on benefits, forfeit rights, or limit future career opportunities.

Here are five elements of a severance package offer that should be on your radar:

Distribution of Severance Pay and Clawback Provisions

Severance pay is understandably the centerpiece of any severance package. In addition to the amount of compensation, you need to know how and when you’ll receive it. Will it be in a lump sum or will it come in installments? Either option comes with tax implications you should discuss with your attorney or accountant.

In addition, look out for any clawback provisions that allow the employer to stop making payments or demand that you return money already paid if the company were to allege that you breached the agreement. Such allegations often involve non-competition or non-disparagement provisions, as discussed below.

Paid Time Off and Vacation

In addition to severance pay, any earned but unused paid time off or vacation days should be part of your package. If you incurred any unreimbursed business expenses, the agreement should account for that as well.
Insurance

Under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act (COBRA), you have the right to remain on your company’s health insurance plan for up to 18 months. One caveat: COBRA premiums can be astronomical if the employer doesn’t agree to continue paying its portion. Explore whether your employer is willing to contribute to your COBRA premium. If your employer provided you with life or disability insurance, ask whether your coverage will continue until you obtain a new job.

Restrictions on What You Can Do and Say

Since it’s likely your employer is under no legal obligation to offer you severance, it will probably want something from you if it does so. This may include non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disclosure, or non-disparagement provisions that limit what you can do or say after you part ways. Depending on your career plans, such restrictions could diminish your ability to seize desirable employment or other opportunities.

Waiver of Claims

Your employer wants your severance agreement to be a final and definitive parting of the ways. The company will ask you to give up any potential legal claims you may have against the company, such as those alleging discrimination or harassment. Make sure you understand the real reasons for your termination and discuss any concerns with an employment attorney before waiving your rights to pursue such matters.

If you have questions about the terms of a proposed severance agreement or would like help negotiating the terms of your departure, 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.

Image Credit: Flamingo Images / Shutterstock

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

State Capital Minnesota-revised-reasonable-accommodations-law

Individuals with disabilities are afforded considerable legal protection against workplace discrimination under both state and federal law. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) is our state law that prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on protected characteristics in Minnesota. In the context of individuals with disabilities, the MHRA provides that, except when based on a bona fide occupational qualification (a.k.a. a reasonable necessity to carry out a particular job function in the normal operation of an employer’s business),[1] employers must provide a reasonable accommodation for job applicants or qualified employees with disabilities unless the employer can demonstrate that the reasonable accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer’s business.[2] This has led many to question just what steps must be taken to accommodate for an individual’s disability.

In 2019, a lawsuit involving this exact issue made its way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The result of the case titled, McBee v. Team Industries, Inc., functionally gutted the protections of an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process to determine an appropriate reasonable accommodation.[3] However, the Minnesota Legislature recently amended the MHRA, codifying this particular requirement of employers and protecting the rights of employees once again.

On June 30, 2021, the Minnesota Legislature abrogated the McBee ruling by amending the reasonable accommodation section of the MHRA. In doing so, the legislature made it clear that the MHRA requires an employer to engage in “an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation,” adding “this process should identify the limitations resulting from the disability and any potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”[4]

Additionally, in defining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer, the MHRA also requires employers to have “documented good faith efforts to explore less restrictive or less expensive alternatives.”[5] This language is absent from the Americans with Disabilities Act (the federal law) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance.

Reasonable workplace accommodations for individuals with disabilities have raised many questions, and they are often difficult to navigate. As an employee, you have rights, and the attorneys at Halunen Law are committed to ensuring that they are protected.

If you have been denied employment or terminated and think that this decision may be predicated on an illegal reason (e.g., discrimination), the experienced attorneys at Halunen Law are here to help. Contact us today for a free consultation.

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-625-bona-fide-occupational-qualifications.

[2] Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a).

[3] See McBee v. Team Industries, Inc., 925 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2019).

[4] Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(a).

[5] Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subd. 6(b)(5).

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

Covid-19-graphicWith over half of all Americans now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, some employers have begun slowly transitioning back to working in-person. And in doing so, many of those employers have implemented vaccine mandates.

As a result, and perhaps to no surprise, some employees have either quit or been fired for not getting the COVID vaccine. We are frequently asked questions about refusing vaccination; most often: (1) does the law protect my job if I refuse to get vaccinated; and (2) if I get fired or I quit for refusing vaccination, can my employer deny my unemployment benefits?

Question 1 – Does the Law Protect My Job? Title VII & ADA Limitations

Like most questions in the law, it depends. While employer-mandated vaccines are lawful, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.[1] As it relates to workplace mandated vaccines, the EEOC provides that employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to employees who do not get vaccinated for COVID-19 due to a sincerely held religious belief, unless providing such accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer.[2] Under Title VII, courts define “undue hardship” as having more than minimal cost or burden on the employer. Considerations relevant to this determination include, among other things, the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and the extent of employee contact with non-employees, whose vaccination status could be unknown or who may be ineligible for the vaccine.[3]

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of an employee’s disability. As it relates to workplace mandated vaccines, the EEOC provides that an employer may require an individual with a disability to get vaccinated if the standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity.[4] If a particular employee cannot meet such a safety-related qualification standard because of a disability, the employer may not require compliance for that employee unless it can demonstrate that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to the health or safety of the employee or others in the workplace.  A “direct threat” (defined as a “significant risk of substantial harm” that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation).[5]

Question 2 – Unemployment Eligibility Requirements

In Minnesota and many other states, individuals must demonstrate that they are out of work through no fault of their own to collect unemployment benefits. Although people who have lost their jobs or had their hours significantly reduced because of COVID-19 may generally qualify for unemployment benefits, states have yet to clarify whether this remains true when an employee is fired or has hours significantly reduced for refusing to get vaccinated. In June 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its guidelines to address this exact concern.

EEOC guidelines provide that vaccine mandates are just like any other workplace safety guideline, and if an employee is fired for not following such a guideline they generally will be unable to collect unemployment, because they were fired for good cause. This would be akin to an employee refusing to submit to a permissible drug test or participate in safety training.[7] However, employers must still adhere to federal employment non-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and must provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19.[8]

Workplace mandated vaccines have raised many questions, and they are often difficult to navigate. As an employee, you have rights, and the attorneys at Halunen Law are committed to ensuring that they are protected.

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.

[1] 42 U.S. Code § 2000e (1964).

[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#K.12.

[3] https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#K.12.

[4] https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#K.12.

[5] 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(r).

[7] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-expect-unemployment-benefits-if-you-dont-comply-with-your-employers-vaccine-requirement-11628287814.

[8] https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#F.

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

Halunen Law employment attorneys Amy Boyle and Colin Pasterski recently filed suit on behalf of Din Dol, alleging the Minneapolis Fire Department engaged in racial discrimination and retaliation against the firefighting recruit. Cadet Dol was on a path to become the city’s first Somali-American firefighter.

The suit alleges Dol was subjected to “outward aggression” by classmates and supervisors, including a physical assault.  and was ultimately fired as retaliation for conveying his concerns.  After experiencing “increased hostile treatment” and reporting his concerns to department leadership, he received negative training feedback.

He was fired on February 21, 2020, less than one month before his anticipated graduation date, even though he had passed two certification exams. The complaint cites a history of racial discrimination against people of color. As of 2016, more than 70% of the department’s firefighters were white—a percentage that has only increased in recent years.

“It is an honor to represent Din Dol,” said Halunen Law employment attorney Colin Pasterski. “This case shines an important spotlight on the underrepresentation of Somali Americans and other people of color in the Minneapolis Fire Department.

Halunen Law has a long-standing history of bringing not only justice but societal change through successful litigation. We hope this case will have a profound impact on the Minneapolis Fire Department’s practices in the future and look forward to helping our client achieve resolution of this matter.”

Din Dol is represented by Halunen Law employment attorneys Colin Pasterski and Amy Boyle.

Read the Complaint filed in Hennepin County

Read recent coverage of this story in the Star Tribune and Associated Press

About Halunen Law

With offices in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Phoenix, Halunen Law offers experienced legal representation to employees, whistleblowers, and those who have been wronged. Halunen Law has achieved a reputation as a fearless, tenacious, and successful plaintiffs’ law firm, with a laser focus on achieving justice for its clients. For more information visit halunenlaw.com. 

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

Does federal law protect LGBT individuals?

Gay Pride FlagIn a groundbreaking decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of three employee plaintiffs—two gay men and one transgender woman—in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (which was consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda and G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC).

‘The Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees, but left other areas of life open-ended. The 117th Congress is expected and poised to close those gaps.

The Equality Act—which seeks to protect gay and transgender individuals in housing, employment, public accommodations, federal funding, credit, and the jury system—passed in the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019, but the Senate did not act upon it after receiving it; effectively killing the bill.

But on February 18, 2021, the House introduced a similar version of the Equality Act, which also includes broader civil rights protections for people of color, women, and other minority groups in public accommodations. With a democratically controlled legislature and support from President Biden, the Act is expected to pass this year.

Currently, only twenty-two states and more than 125 cities have enacted comprehensive protections for LGBTQ people. Minnesota is one of them.

How are LGBTQ employees protected in Minnesota?

In 1993, the Minnesota Legislature amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) banning both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services, education, credit, and in trade or business. The broad definition of “sexual orientation” under the MHRA made it the nation’s first state civil rights law protecting transgender individuals from discrimination.

In the employment context, the MHRA also protects employees from reprisal (i.e., retaliation) for reporting differential treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic (e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, race, age, etc.). Employees who work in Minnesota (even if it is just for a handful of days per year) may be protected by the MHRA.

If you have just been fired, or you suspect you are about to be fired, and you think that your termination may be for an illegal reason (e.g., discrimination, retaliation for reporting discrimination), the experienced attorneys at Halunen Law are here to help.  Contact us today for a free consultation.

By Rocket55DevAdmin |

Employment Needs
In a 7-2 decision announced on July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to exempt two religious elementary schools from lawsuits by former teachers claiming the schools had fired them for alleged discriminatory reasons. In doing so, the Supreme Court relied on the “ministerial exception,” which holds that the schools’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion essentially absolves the institution from following any national and state anti-discrimination laws in employment. The result of the Court’s ruling is that any employee of a religious organization, “so long as the employer determines that an employee’s ‘duties’ are ‘vital’ to carrying out the mission of the church,” are, shockingly, no longer protected.

The case decided concerned two elementary school teachers at Roman Catholic schools. Kristen Biel and Agnes Morrissey-Berru both taught secular subjects to fifth graders and had no prior religious training or certifications. In fact, the only part of their job that intersected with the religious mission of the schools was leading their classes in a daily prayer. Nonsensically, the Court determined that this minimal religious duty was enough to render the teachers “ministerial employees,”—and avoid liability.

The basis of the ministerial exception is that the First Amendment allows religious organizations to be free of state regulation when it comes to decisions about how to run their church, including hiring and firing their ministers. The Court’s decision this month, however, expands that idea beyond an institution’s legitimate need to organize its religious staff to carry out their mission. This new precedent will allow religious organizations to classify employees with only the slightest connection to the religious aspects of the organization as ministers to avoid complying with anti-discrimination laws. The scope of this decision is not yet clear, but it certainly puts janitors, receptionists, coaches, camp counselors, and other employees who have virtually no ministerial duties at risk of losing all their workplace rights—rights which all other Americans at secular public and private employers alike—currently enjoy. That, my friends, is contrary to the “The Golden Rule,” which many religious traditions preach.

We, at Halunen Law, respect the right of all Americans to freely practice their religion, but firmly believe in accountability for organizations who discriminate against their hardworking, taxpaying employees.

© 2026 Halunen Law | Minneapolis Employment Attorneys