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.

Halunen Law Blog Image In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate passed, and the President signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the “Act”). What are arbitration agreements, and how do they affect your employment?

Regardless of their size, many companies manage to squeeze in some sort of an arbitration provision into their employment contracts, non-competes, or even company handbooks. These arbitration clauses are often very broad, requiring employees to forgo their rights to bring any employment-related claims in courts, and forcing them to resolve claims in a private forum—arbitration. Thus, if your employer wrongfully terminates you, even if you bring a claim in court, your employer will have a right to remove your case from court into a private arbitration, where a third-party arbitrator will adjudicate your case.

Employers have utilized this scheme for decades to avoid bad publicity and sweep wrongful conduct under the rug. But this scheme will no longer work as it relates to the sexual harassment/assault claims. The Act allows victims of sexual harassment/assault to disregard the arbitration agreement and pursue their case in a civil court, thus giving them back a right to have their case adjudicated by a jury.
In any case, it is worth remembering that the Act does not force the victim to take the case to court. If the victims of sexual harassment or assault would like to have their claims resolved privately, they still have a right to submit their case to Alternative Dispute Resolution, including arbitration.

The natural question follows—if Congress recognizes how harmful the mandatory arbitration clauses are in employment sexual harassment and assault cases, should such clauses still apply to other discrimination claims? But this is a topic for a different blog.

Halunen Law’s employment law group is a team of tenacious attorneys dedicated to ensuring employee rights and protections. 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.

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

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).

A photo of a woman sitting in front of a laptop in a black suit jacket. She's holding her hands over her face as she sits in a brightly lit office with bookshelves in the background.  During my career as an employment law attorney, I have had the unique privilege of representing many employees who have been sexually assaulted during the course of their employment by a co-worker or supervisor.

It makes my heart heavy to know there are so many people out there who have gone through such an experience.

Read More…

In an important decision on June 3, 2020, in the case Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc.[1] the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota courts are not bound by restrictive federal court guidance in determining what constitutes sexual harassment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).

For the past several decades, federal courts have applied an extremely narrow, and very high, bar to what constitutes sexual harassment under federal employment laws. Because of this restrictive interpretation of the law, very few victims of sexual harassment got their cases heard by a jury, because federal judges often dismissed their cases before trial. But in Kenneh, the Minnesota Supreme Court took a big step towards allowing victims of sexual harassment to get their day in court.

History of Sexual Harassment Law

In 1964, the U.S. Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace. Similarly, in 1973, the Minnesota Human Rights Act was amended to prohibit discrimination based on sex in Minnesota workplaces. Under these laws, part of what an employee must show when bringing a case of sex discrimination is that an employer took an ‘adverse employment action’ against them because of their sex; meaning, the employer caused them to suffer some form of harm because of the employer’s actions. Courts agree that being fired is a clear-cut example of an “adverse employment action.” But what about other actions taken by an employer that don’t rise to the level of a termination? Courts have wrestled with this question for decades.

It wasn’t until the 1980s that courts began to recognize that sexual harassment in the workplace could rise to the level of an “adverse employment action,” and thus violate the law, even if the employee was not terminated as a result of the harassment. In 1980, Minnesota recognized that sexual harassment could be considered an adverse employment action—six years before federal courts did.[2] In subsequent rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sexual harassment could constitute an adverse employment action, and thus be illegal, only if it was “severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment.”[3] This standard is measured by what a “reasonable person” would consider to be hostile or abusive. Courts recognize that making this determination is not a mathematically precise test. Courts are supposed to consider all the facts and circumstances of the conduct, including the frequency of the conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Up until the Kenneh decision, Minnesota courts generally followed federal courts’ interpretation of Title VII when determining whether conduct was sexually harassing under the MHRA.

Federal Courts Keep Victims of Egregious Sexual Harassment from Having Their Day in Court

Unfortunately, federal courts continued to raise the bar higher and higher for what was considered “severe or pervasive” conduct, particularly courts within the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Minnesota. The Eighth Circuit has held that in order to show that sexually harassing conduct is severe or pervasive, an employee must show that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” and that the conduct was “extreme in nature and not merely rude or unpleasant.”[4]

As a result, many truly egregious cases were dismissed before reaching a jury. Here are a few examples:

  • There was no ‘severe or pervasive’ harassment where the employee’s supervisor allegedly grabbed and squeezed her nipple while saying “this is a form of sexual harassment,” and took her towel, rubbed it on his crotch, and gave it back to her.[5]
  • There was no severe or pervasive sexual harassment where the supervisor allegedly put his arms around the employee’s shoulders, kissed the side of her face, called her into his office, locked the door, prevented her from escaping, removed her hand from the doorknob, and attempted to kiss her.[6]
  • A plaintiff could not show severe or pervasive sexual harassment where the supervisor allegedly sexually propositioned her, repeatedly touched her hand, requested that she draw an image of a phallic object, displayed a poster portraying the employee as the president and CEO of the “Man Haters’ Club of America,” and asked her to type a copy of the “He-Man Women Hater’s Club” manifesto.[7]
  • Sexual harassment was not severe or pervasive where the harasser allegedly asked the employee to watch pornographic movies with him, masturbate together, told her she would advance more quickly in the company if she caused him to orgasm, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her buttocks, brushed her groin, reached for her genitals, and gripped her thigh.[8]

Kenneh Says Minnesota Courts Not Bound by Federal Cases

But in the Kenneh case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota courts are not bound by these restrictive federal cases. In her case, Ms. Kenneh has alleged that on numerous occasions over a five month period, her supervisor told her he liked beautiful women with beautiful legs, licked his lips in a suggestive manner, physically blocked her from leaving her office with his body, told her he liked to “eat women” and that he wanted to “eat [her],” simulated oral sex with his hand and tongue, called her sexy, pretty and beautiful, and stared at her for uncomfortably long periods of time. The district court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed her case, holding that under the “severe or pervasive” standard, this was not enough evidence for Ms. Kenneh’s case to go to a jury. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed their decision, saying that it was up to a jury to decide whether the harassment was severe or pervasive.

In Kenneh, the Court held that the MHRA provides broader employment protections than federal law, and must be interpreted as such. The Minnesota Supreme Court also noted that attitudes and social norms about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable workplace behavior are changing. It told the lower courts that they must take this into account when deciding whether conduct is severe or pervasive, rather than relying on old, restrictive federal cases. Most importantly, the justices cautioned Minnesota courts from deciding whether conduct is severe or pervasive enough, and said instead that a jury should make those determinations in most cases. This means that more victims of sexual harassment in Minnesota will now get their day in court to present their case to a jury of their peers. This is a huge step forward for victims of sexual harassment in Minnesota workplaces.

If you believe you have been the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, we encourage you to reach out to our firm to speak with an experienced employment attorney for advice.

[1]http://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Supreme%20Court/Standard%20Opinions/OPA180174-060320.pdf

[2] Compare Cont’l Can Co. v. State, 297 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1980), with Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

[3] Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).

[4] Nitsche v. CEO of Osage Valley Elec. Coop., 446 F.3d 841, 846 (8th Cir. 2006).

[5] Rickard v. Swedish Match North America, Inc, 773 F.3d 181, 183 (8th Cir. 2014).

[6] McMiller v. Metro, 738 F.3d 185, 186–87 (8th Cir. 2013).

[7] Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928, at 931–35 (8th Cir. 2002).

[8]LeGrand v. Area Resources for Community and Human Services, 394 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2005).

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the number of discrimination complaints based on national origin has risen by 76 percent in just the past 15 years. In 2011, more than 11,800 complaints were filed alleging workplace discrimination based on English-speaking ability or having an accent.

For example, a contract driver for FedEx in Utah, says he was fired because a single person at a weigh station concluded that he did not speak English. The Iowa weigh station issued a warning, which is less than a citation against his employer. When FedEx found out, they ordered his company to fire him.

Read More…

During the economic downturn, many Minnesota workers may have turned to temporary employment or staffing agencies to find work. Temporary and contract workers often have different benefits, contracts, and responsibilities than permanent employees, but do they have different employee rights in the workplace?

Both state and federal laws protect employees from being treated unfairly on the basis of their race, sex, age, disability or religion in the workplace. Workers who experience workplace discrimination on the basis of these, or other protected classifications, have the right to seek legal recourse.

Read More…

“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

.- Hubert H. Humphrey

Halunen Law - Protection for Employees Reporting Abuse Against Vulnerable AdultsThrough their state-granted licenses, healthcare facilities have been entrusted with the duty to care for Minnesota’s vulnerable adults. Unfortunately, history gives us horrifying accounts of abuse and neglect of the most vulnerable among us while in the care of those facilities. For decades, the maltreated were left to suffer in silence, unless a vigilant family member or health care provider spoke up.

In April 1980, Minnesota Governor Al Quie signed Minnesota’s Vulnerable Adults Act into law. The Act was intended to protect vulnerable adults from abuse or neglect and to assist those charged with the care of vulnerable adults to provide safe environments. Since then, the Vulnerable Adults Act has been revised to strengthen protections for Minnesota’s vulnerable adults’ population.

Read More…

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) initiated a lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that the retail-giant allowed an employee to sexually abuse a female employee over a number of years, and then retaliating against the woman when she complained of the abuse.

According to a complaint filed in federal district court, the woman, who is developmentally disabled, endured harassment of a sexual nature (including touching in inappropriate areas) while at work from April 2005 through January 2011. The complaint also alleges that store management did not take prompt or effective actions to address the abuse. Three weeks after complaining about the long-standing abuse, Wal-Mart terminated her employment.

Read More…

© 2026 Halunen Law | Minneapolis Employment Attorneys