On May 15, 2024, Governor Tim Walz signed into law a host of amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA protect individuals from discrimination in employment, housing and real property, education, and public services. The MHRA has been law in Minnesota since 1967. The bi-partisan amendments clarified rights under the MHRA and expanded safeguards for individuals against discrimination and take effect on August 1, 2024. The amendments recognized that discrimination can be because of one or more protected basis including race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, familial status, and age. The term “disability” was amended to clarify that disability includes an impairment that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active. This would include cancer, Multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorder, and similar conditions that have flare ups or a reoccurrence. The term “discriminate” specifically includes segregate, separate, or harassment. Discriminatory harassment based upon any protected basis is covered by the MHRA. Familial status discrimination now includes one or more minors with legal status or custody with the minor’s parent or parents or guardians or designee. It also includes individuals living in the household who are unable to communicate decisions or receive or evaluate information. Discrimination because of personal or commercial credit on account of familial status is also prohibited. Some procedural amendments to the MHRA serve to clarify that the rights and remedies under the MHRA are in addition to other rights, remedies and claims available under the law. The MHRA is not exclusive and does not bar other claims available to individuals. This issue had arisen in the context of individuals with worker’s compensation claims or other common law civil claims. Additionally, the time for individuals to start a lawsuit after the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has made a determination of no probable cause for a charge of discrimination has been extended to 90 days instead of 45 days. The 90 days lines up with the federal time for commencing a lawsuit from a right to sue issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for federal discrimination charges. The commissioner of human rights will need to issue a decision within a year in cases that have not been tolled. The law governing discrimination against individuals with service animals in public places, such as hotel and restaurants, was clarified to cover all individuals with proper service animals. The new amendments also provided exemptions from the MHRA for discrimination in employment for fraternal corporations, associations, or societies organizations when religion is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment. The amendments clarified that not for profit religious associations have constitutional First Amendment Constitutional protection for religious exemptions for actions regarding education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities, as well as certain business contexts. In terms of penalties and damages recoverable, the MHRA was amended to direct the court to impose a civil penalty be paid to the state by violators. It clarified that the court shall order violators to pay compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, up to three times the actual damages sustained. The amendment removed the $25,000 cap on punitive damage awards, except when a political subdivision such as a county, city or town, is the violator. Other remedies available to the court were also included in the amendments that help ensure a fair result when violations occur. The 2024 amendments to the MHRA will provide additional protections for Minnesotans who have been discriminated against in employment, housing and real property, education and public accommodations and moving forward. This article provides a general summary and people should seek independent legal advice for individual situations.

In February, 2024, I authored an op-ed piece on gun violence that was published by the Star Tribune. Here is the link: https://www.startribune.com/counterpoint-restricting-ammunition-is-our-leverage-against-gun-violence/600346585/

Minnesota has banned non-compete agreements effective July 1, 2023. The new law provides that “Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable.” The law affects employment contracts that included restrictive covenants for employee agreements. A covenant not to compete does not include a nondisclosure agreement, or agreement designed to protect trade secrets or confidential information. A covenant not to compete also does not include a nonsolicitation agreement, or agreement restricting the ability to use client or contact lists, or solicit customers of the employer. Covenants not to compete in connection with the sale or dissolution of a business are not affected. The new law is set out in Minnesota Statute Section 181.988. The ban on non-compete covenants in employee agreements does not apply to agreements entered before July 1, 2023.

Employees facing hostile working conditions such as sexual harassment, discrimination, or other illegal conduct can take steps to protect themselves and their rights. Here are five tips. 1. Document incidents and events. Keep a written journal. When events occur that are hostile, offensive or discriminatory, make a note to record the date, time and circumstances. Keep a record of offensive comments and situations and who you have talked to about it. You can record it in a spiral notebook, a calendar, or notes. Consider maintaining it in written form so you own it. An electronic method is fine, so long as you have ownership of the device. 2. Make sure your documentation remains accessible if the employment ends. In other words, do not leave it at the office or on a work computer or device. 3. Obtain a copy of the company’s human resources policies and read the section on reporting complaints. Employees are required to follow reasonable policies for reporting complaints of harassment and discrimination for investigation and resolution. Employees are required to report discriminatory harassment by co-workers and an be important harassment by supervisors. If a complaint is made, keep a copy. 4. Request a copy of your personnel record. In Minnesota, employees have the right to review their personnel record every six months while employed. If separated from employment, employees have the right to request a copy from the employer at no charge. The request must be in writing. Employers must comply with a written request no later than seven working days after receipt of the request if the personnel record is located in this state, or no later than 14 working days after receipt of the request if the personnel record is located outside this state. 5. Consider recording conversations. Generally, conversations can be recorded so long as one party to the conversation consents. While not practical for all situations, recordings can dispel later disputes about what was said.

Stephen Fiebiger was re-appointed to the Merit System Council by Governor Tim Walz for a three-year term. Fiebiger’s appointment is from March 30, 2022 to January 6, 2025. The Minnesota Merit System announces civil service examinations for employment in the social services and human services agencies in 42 of Minnesota’s 87 counties. The Merit System Council hears personnel appeals, sets policy for administration of examinations, and reviews classification and compensation plans and proposed rule changes according to the news release from Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan.

The Minnesota supreme court recently reversed a summary judgment in a wrongful death negligence case involving a woman who died after falling down a flight of stairs claimed to have been negligently maintained. Examining proximate cause and circumstantial evidence under the summary judgment standard, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed so that a jury could infer the poor and degraded conditions of the stairs was a substantial factor in causing the fall. The court rejected other theories as being dispositive of the case, including the absence of an eye witness. The case is Staub v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, et al., Case No. A20-0267.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision on July 26, 2021 in an age discrimination case under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) containing helpful language for proving the third and fourth elements of the prima facie case. The four-part prima facie case must be established for most discrimination claims under the McDonnel Douglas test used by the courts. The case is Henry v. Independent School District #625, a/k/a St. Paul Public Schools, Case No. A21-0004. For the third element requiring evidence the employee suffered an adverse employment action, the Court observed that "the concept of an adverse employment action is broader than proof of discharge or constructive discharge, and may also be proved if an employee presents evidence that, when considered cumulatively, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude the employee suffered a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment discharge." Op. at 15. The Court focused on the use of three performance evaluations in less than a year; exaggeration of trivial performance issues to support discipline; placement of the employee on an unachievable PIP with the intent that the employee would fail or resign; issuance of a letter threatening termination if she didn't accomplish the goals of the unachievable PIP; more harsh reprimands than for other employees; denied opportunity to attend a training session; and comments by the lead manager creating an environment where employees were reluctant to report discriminatory conduct. Id. at 15-16. The cumulative effect of these actions caused the employee to suffer an adverse employment action. The Court also used a more flexible standard for the fourth element by ruling it could be satisfied upon a showing that circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination, in lieu of having to show the employee was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. Id. at 14. In age cases this required replacement by a younger person. Hence, evidence of pretext can be used to satisfy this element if the employee has not been replaced by a person outside the protected class. This may well gain review by the supreme court, but since the decision was designated as precedential by the Court of Appeals, it will be useful until the supreme court rules otherwise.

Minnesotans can vote by mail without having to personally visit their local polling site for the upcoming primary election on August 11, 202 and general election on November 3, 2020. You can have a mail in ballot sent to you by visiting mnvotes.org and requet an absentee ballot be mailed to you..

On February 26, 2020, the Minnesota supreme court ordered a new trial in Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., a media defamation case handled by Mr. Fiebiger, reversing a previous decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Larson claimed he was defamed by statements published by KARE 11 and The St. Cloud Times following his arrest for the murder of Cold Sping police officer Tom Decker in November, 2012 and a news conference and news release by law enforcement. The supreme court ruled that the fair reporting privilege applied to five statements published by the defendants, but that a new trial was required to determine whether the privilege had been defeated or abused. The district court had not instructed the jury on the factors to consider in determining whether the privilege had been abused. The supreme court adopted Larson's argument that the falsity instruction given at trial was insufficient and incomplete to determine whether the privilege had been defeated. This should be decided by a jury. The media defendants' petition for rehearing was denied by the suprme court on March 30, 2020. The supreme court's opinion is published at 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020). A new trial date in Hennepin County District Court has not been set.