In 2023, Minnesota enacted the “Employer-Sponsored Meetings of Communications Act” (the “Act”), Minn. Stat. § 181.531. The Act prohibits employers from taking adverse employment action against any employee who refuses to participate in meetings where the employer discusses its opinion on political and religious matters.
Captive audience meetings are employer sponsored meetings where the employer requires employees to attend and listen to the employer position concerning a union organizing effort. The meeting is intended to dissuade workers from unionizing. These meetings continue to receive significant attention at the state and federal level. There are now 12 states, including Minnesota, which have enacted laws designed to ban or restrict captive audience meetings: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and, most recently, California.
Last week, a Hennepin County judge sentenced an employer following a first-of-its-kind criminal conviction for wage theft in Minnesota.
Since its enactment in 2019, Minnesota’s Wage Theft Prevention Act has imposed stringent penalties on employers who unlawfully withhold wages from employees. Under the Act, employers may face felony charges if they commit wage theft with intent to defraud their employees in an amount greater than $1,000.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued several significant decisions that employers doing business in Minnesota should be aware of. Here are a few highlights of recent Eight Circuit Decisions that have addressed important topics in employment law.
The beginning of a new year, or new fiscal year, can often bring changes to a company’s workforce. Many businesses will perform or complete performance reviews and implement compensation changes based on the prior year. The new year can also be a time when employees make moves of their own – new year, new job.
All of this activity can create some thorny questions about a company’s obligations to a departing employee. Let’s say an employee receives a glowing performance review that merits a bonus and a raise for the following year. They are paid the bonus on February 15th and given the raise with an effective date retroactive to January 1st. In the following March, the employee submits notice of their resignation, announcing that their family has decided to move, and they have accepted a new job out of state. Their last day will be April 30th. Can the employer claw back the bonus that was just paid? What about the salary increase?
Two recent decisions by the Minnesota Court of Appeals will impact Minnesota businesses facing potential discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The gig economy has had a substantial impact on employment nationwide, and Minnesota is no different. Minneapolis in particular has been a hotbed for disputes between rideshare companies and local lawmakers trying to increase pay for their drivers. National rideshare companies recently threatened to pull out of Minneapolis entirely after the city council mandated pay increases that the companies said went further than necessary to meet the city’s minimum wage standards. Implementation of the new ordinance, and the threatened exodus by rideshare employers, have been delayed while the state legislature works on passing new regulations for the industry that would apply across Minnesota.