Minnesota Supreme Court Rules on Workplace Handbook Policies
April 16, 2021 | Scott M. Lepak
Authored By Scott M. Lepak and Claire Schmitz The Minnesota Supreme Court recently announced two important holdings in Hall v. City of Plainview regarding workplace handbook policies. First, the Court determined that general disclaimers in employee handbooks (generally at the front of personnel handbooks or manuals) do not automatically apply to all provisions within the handbook, including compensation and severance policies. The second ruling was that the state law providing a penalty for failure to pay wages promptly did not create an automatic right to paid time off (PTO) on its own absent a binding contract present. Read on as we discuss the specifics of the Minnesota Supreme Court rulings on workplace handbook policies. Background Facts In 2017, the City of Plainview terminated an employee who had accrued unused PTO throughout 30 years of work. When the employee was terminated, the City refused to pay him the accrued PTO, citing the employee handbook. The City claimed he had not given “sufficient notice” per a policy in their handbook. This employment handbook also contained a disclaimer stating that the provisions within it “should not be construed as contract terms” and that it was “not intended to create an express or implied contract of employment between the City of Plainview and an employee.” The employee…
Read MoreDisciplining Employees in a Newly Unionized Setting
July 17, 2020 | Scott M. Lepak
The time after a union is voted into place and before the parties have entered into a collective bargaining agreement is often viewed as a period of great uncertainty. It is typically a time of considerable posturing as the employer and union seek to establish their respective authority as they work through this new relationship. There is often disagreement on what constitutes a management right (that does not need to be negotiated) as opposed to a mandatory subject of bargaining (that must be negotiated). Read on to learn more about disciplining employees in a newly unionized setting. A typical disputed area is the employer’s right to determine how to discipline employees before a first union contract is finalized. This area received significant clarity from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) on June 23, 2020, as it applies to private sector employers.1 In 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford and 1199 SEIU, United Healthcare Workers East, 369 NLRB No. 109, the Board issued a decision stating that upon commencement of a collective-bargaining relationship, employers do not have an obligation to bargain prior to disciplining bargaining unit employees in accordance with an established disciplinary policy or practice. This Care One at New Milford decision significantly and specifically…
Read MoreCOVID-19 Return to Work: What Can an Employer Do When a Higher Risk Employee Wishes to Return to Work?
June 25, 2020 | Scott M. LepakIn another recent blog post, we addressed the issue of what employers may do when they have employees who the employer knows are at high risk. The short answer is that even if they are trying to act in the worker’s best interests, an employer is not permitted to assume the role of a benevolent parent – it is within the employee’s control to exercise their rights. Here, we go into more detail related to what an employer can do when a higher risk employee wishes to return to work. According to the EEOC, if an employer is concerned about the employee’s health being jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, the ADA does not allow the employer to exclude the employee or take adverse action solely because the employee has a disability that the CDC identifies as potentially placing the employee at “higher risk for severe illness” if the employee gets COVID-19. This action under the ADA is not allowed unless the employee’s disability poses a “direct threat” to the employee’s health that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. The “direct threat” requirement is a high standard. As an affirmative defense, direct threat requires an employer to show that the individual has a disability that poses a “significant risk of substantial…
Read More