Minnesota workers are entitled to employment protections under both federal and state laws. In many aspects of employment law, Minnesota is a progressive state, with state laws offering additional prohibitions against certain types of workplace discrimination. The distinction between federal and state laws can be of minimal importance to employees who simply benefit from whichever coverage applies and provides the most workplace protections.
Discrimination
In a recent post, we discussed some of the challenges that those with a criminal record may face in the job market. Today’s story provides context for that struggle with a real life example.
Recently, the NAACP and TakeAction Minnesota brought allegations of unfair hiring practices against Target Corp. In ten formal complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the organizations allege that Target’s hiring policies unlawfully discriminate against applicants with criminal records.
Although terminating someone’s employment because they are pregnant has been against the law since 1978 when the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was first passed it does not stop some Minnesota employers from blatantly firing someone simply for being pregnant. Take the case of a woman who told her employer she was pregnant at the beginning of her second trimester. Her employer’s immediate response was “That’s not going to work.” She was fired the following day for no other reason than announcing her pregnancy.
A Minnesota man recently settled a claim alleging that U.S. Bank handled his mortgage loan request in a discriminatory manner. A spokesperson for U.S. Bank says the company denies the existence of disability discrimination but agreed to settle the complaint and pay the man $12,000.
U.S. Bank allegedly required the man to provide proof of his disability income benefits before approving his mortgage loan. The lender allegedly wanted assurance that the man would continue receiving disability-related income for the next three years.
The St. Paul school district recently announced that it has settled a federal racial discrimination lawsuit.
The suit was brought by the families of three former students at Heights Community School against the school district, school principal and a sixth grade teacher. The complaint alleges that the teacher disparaged black children and subjected them to discriminatory treatment, including allegedly requiring them to sit facing the wall in the back of the classroom.
Advocates for gay rights are renewing their efforts to seek protection from discrimination in light of the president’s recent support for the cause during his second inaugural address. President Obama’s statements about gay rights represented a major turning point in the eyes of advocates who are excited about the possibilities for change.
Current federal employment law bans discrimination based on the categories of race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity, disability status, or religion. No protection is offered for employees who experience discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Advocates for expanding protections to LGBT workers have been pushing for an executive order that would ban this type of discrimination by federal contractors.
Many Minnesota readers know that it is illegal to discriminate against employees who become pregnant. Current laws afford protection from being treated unfairly, paid less, denied work or promotional opportunities, or retaliating against a worker who takes maternity or paternity leave. Those protections have helped accomplish a lot for employees and have made the situation much better for pregnant employees, but the truth is that the law still falls short of making sure that employers can’t discriminate against pregnant workers.
One area where protection is still lacking is in the requirement that employers make accommodations for pregnant workers. While the law enforces reasonable accommodations for disabled workers, pregnant workers who have a temporary change in physical capabilities are not entitled to accommodations. This means that if a pregnant worker with a job that requires standing asks for more frequent breaks to sit or requests a chair, they could face retaliation and it would be perfectly legal.
It’s fairly common for coworkers to joke around in the office and give each other nicknames, and many Minnesota employees simply accept this as a fact of life. However, some nicknames can go too far and be hurtful or degrading, and it’s important to know that can be considered workplace harassment.
A recent case of a school district groundskeeper illustrates how some nicknames can cross the line. The groundskeeper had been working at the school for about ten years when he was suddenly fired after an on-the-job accident he was involved with while driving a truck. The man has a low IQ and describes himself as borderline mentally handicapped and testified in a court case later that the accident was related to his employer’s refusal to accommodate his disability.
Newly named Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer made waves when she revealed that she was pregnant shortly after her new job was announced. She said at the time that her new employer was not concerned about her pregnancy and that she planned to take a short maternity leave of only a few weeks and that she would likely work throughout it.
The news that one of the top women in Silicon Valley was pregnant and taking a new job was followed by praise for the progressive attitude at Yahoo! and questions about whether it represented another crack in the glass ceiling. Others were less enthusiastic, pointing out Mayer’s choice to take only a few weeks and work from home during that time. A writer at the Wall Street Journal even worried that her example would give new expectations to HR departments eager to get employees back from leave sooner.
Personality tests have grown in popularity in recent years as many more employer are looking to hire long-term workers who will fit well within the company hierarchy. The tests are designed to find a certain type of employee who will be well-suited to the job and are often a first step in the hiring process.
A recent industry poll revealed that about 18 percent of human resources professionals use personality tests as a part of the hiring or promotion process. The tests were most often used for mid-level managers, but also utilized heavily for entry-level jobs and executive positions. Human resources professionals like the tests because they can be fairly accurate predictors of how someone will actually behave at work.