Minnesota Employment Legal Questions

So in most jurisdictions, an uninvited guest or person who has no legal claim on property ownership or on the title deed can only be removed from that residence by the owner filing an unlawful detainer action. You should tell him that if he does not leave voluntarily, then you will be forced to file an unlawful detainer action, and he most likely will not be able to get a lease b/c an eviction action would go on his credit report. You should retain counsel in your state for representation. ... Read Answer

I hope you have already resolved this with your employer. If not, you should know that the legal requirement is the "The employer must make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location, in close proximity to the work area, other than a bathroom or a toilet stall, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public and that includes access to an electrical outlet, where the employee can express her milk in privacy.The employer would be held harmless if reasonable effort has been made." There is an exception where providing the break would "unduly disrupt" the employer's operations. So, there are some minimum standards, but beyond that, the question is basically whether the employer's efforts are "reasonable." The law also says that "An employer may not retaliate against an employee for asserting rights or remedies under this section." Furthermore, if they don't comply or if they retaliate, you have a right to "bring a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees, and may receive injunctive and other equitable relief as determined by a court." So, if you believe the employer has not acted reasonably here, you should push them for a different space that reasonably meets the minimum requirements. If they retaliate or fail to act reasonably, then you should consider taking them to court as allowed by the statute.... Read Answer

Discrimination based on pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination under Minnesota law. Whether the actions the employer has taken could be considered unlawful discrimination will depend in part on whether they are adverse to you and whether they are based on your pregnancy. You should consult with an employment law attorney to discuss this in more detail.... Read Answer

Under Minnesota law, whether or not an employee has a right to be paid for accrued but unused vacation time depends on the employer's policies or any agreements between the employer and the employee. So, in order to answer this, we would need to know what those policies say and/or whether there were any agreements between you and T-mobile relating to this issue.... Read Answer

Many company policies have disclaimers saying something to the effect of how, despite what the policies may say, the company retains the right to terminate employees at-will and/or that the company may, at its discretion, bypass stated internal disciplinary processes. If that's your situation, then the fact that the HR person terminated you instead of the president probably makes no difference. However, when any MN employer employing labor within MN discharges an employee, the wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee. And, depending on what your former employer's policies say, that might include earned but unused paid time off. There are penalties and other consequences that can be assessed against a MN employer that does not follow these rules. A MN employer must comply with a written request for an employee's personnel record 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.      ... Read Answer

In most cases, Minnesota law requires that every employer must pay all wages earned by an employee at least once every 31 days on a regular payday designated in advance by the employer. If these delays, whether caused by the payroll company or not, mean that your boyfriend has gone for more than 31 days without getting paid, then he may have a claim for unpaid wages.  If successful, he could recover the unpaid wages, plus a penalty, attorney's fees and court costs.... Read Answer

Under MN law, an employer must allow each employee adequate time from work within each four consecutive hours of work to utilize the nearest convenient restroom. In my opinion, this is supposed to be a paid break. Also, MN law requires that an employer must permit each employee who is working for eight or more consecutive hours sufficient time to eat a meal, but this does not have to be a paid break.... Read Answer

This depends on who you work for and whether you were qualified for the position.  If you work for a company that has a union or work for a government agency, there may be specific rules that prevent them from accepting the late application absent special circumstances.  Whether there may be a violation also depends on whether you feel they were intentionally trying to avoid promoting you.  I suggest you speak to an attorney or a union rep to further explore this matter.... Read Answer

The short answer is yes.  Generally speaking, an employer can "make" you work 8.5 hours / day, unless there is a contract that dictates otherwise.  However, MN law requires employers to allow restroom and lunch breaks (depending on how long the employee's scheduled shifts are). The real issue may be whether you are truly an "exempt" worker. There are many common misconceptions about when a worker is "exempt." If you are not actually exempt, then you may have a right to be paid more for any extra hours you work. Because I do not know enough about your situation, this answer is not to be considered as legal advice, and it does not establish an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult your attorney.  ... Read Answer

Stephanie, There is a MN statute which says that when a MN employer discharges an employee, the wages or commissions actually earned and unpaid at the time of the discharge are immediately due and payable upon demand of the employee.  When it comes to commissions, the issue is often when those commissions are "actually earned," and that depends on what the commission arrangement is with the employer. In some cases, a commission may not be "actually earned" until long after the discharge because the employer may need time to take into account whatever factors come into play to calculate the commission.  However, if you never get the commissions you earned, or if you have proof that the employer underpaid them, then you may have a claim for unpaid wages/commissions against the employer.... Read Answer

If you have a particular sensitivity to stronger perfumes, you should have your doctor note that and indicate that you need to be in an area away from that source of perfume.  It would not be unreasonable for the employer to ask that specific employee to not wear certain perfumes or at least to move you from that area.  It would be difficult, however, to make the entire work area perfume or odor free  ... Read Answer

If you are truly an exempt employee, the occasional addition of non-exempt work is not enough to turn you into a non-exempt employee.  If it becomes the majority of what you do, of course you will no longer be doing exempt work, and then the employer would be required to pay overtime, etc.  You may want to have someone look at the classification of your current position to see if it is truly an exempt job.  Many employers confuse salaried with exempt.... Read Answer

I'd be extremely careful here.  One of the most common mistakes businesses (large and small) make is to employ a person they consider to be a "contractor" only to find out the person meets the legal definition of an "employee."  What you are describing seems pretty clearly to be an employment relationship, not a "vendor" or "contractor."  Here's some of the analysis.  A "contractor" or "vendor" operates his own business and works for a variety of customers/clients; an employee works for a single employer. A "contractor" or "vendor" has authority to hire and fire his own employees; an employee does not.  A "contractor" or "vendor" usually has his own business license and complies with all laws applicable to the business; an employee does not.  A "contractor" or "vendor" determines how he will perform the work and does so without oversight from his client/customer; an employee takes his instructions from the employer and performs the work as assigned to him.  You get the idea. Now, what happens if you set the person up as a "vendor" and it later turns out he/she is actually an employee?  You're doomed.  First, you will own significant workers compensation premiums since you are required to provide WC coverage to your employees - and you haven't paid for the "vendor's" (who is now an employee) coverage.  Worse yet, you have not with held taxes from the "vendor's" (now an employee) wages.  YOU therefore owe the taxes, and these taxes are your PERSONAL responsibility - not the businesses.  Also, there are very serious liability implications.  For instance, what if the "vendor" is involved in an auto accident while running an errand for your business in the course of his/her work?  Your business may be liable for any injuries or damages caused by the "vendor's" negligence, but you don't have the "vendor" covered on your insurance.  I could go on and on. My advice is that if you need an employee, you hire one and comply with all of the nightmarish laws, regulations and other requirements.  Trying to avoid these requirements by claiming the person is a "vendor" or "contractor" can lead to disaster.... Read Answer

It is a tough case,as employers in Minnesota don't have to justify why they fire anyone and employees have very few rights to work.  There is nothing to suggest that any discrimination law was breached.  There is theoretically a possible claim against the co-worker, but it is pretty week and probably not very collectable.... Read Answer

You are entitled to the past pay. Your employer was violating state and federal law.  I have handled cases like that.  The law is clear. You should consider getting a lawyer to represent you.  We would love to do it, as would other lawyers.  You can only go back a limited number of years, not the full five years.  (Two, unless it was willful, in which case it is 3 years.)  There is also a civil penalty and the employer can be required to pay your lawyer.  ... Read Answer

Good question.  "Discrimination" is a creature of statue.  By that I mean that there is no right to be free of "discrimination" unless there is a law prohibiting it.  The laws are written to protect people in certain defined categories.  For instance, laws protect people from being discriminated because of their age, sex, religion, national origin, disability and so forth.  People over 40 years of age, for example, are "protected" against age discrimination.  However, unless the state in which you live has a law prohibiting discrimination against convicted felons, it is not unlawful to refuse to hire a person who has been convicted of a felony.  Stated differently, convicted felons is not a category of persons "protected" from discrimination.... Read Answer

They are doing background checks and don't want to refer you to their clients.  And why would they?  You have a criminal background.  Lots of people have not commuted crimes and are looking for jobs.  Discrimination is against the law only for protected classes.  If the discrimination were based on age, faith, race, sex, or any other protected class, it would be against the law.  There is no Minnesota law that protects criminals who do not have a felony.  You have a criminal record, which makes it difficult for you. I hope you find someone who is willing to look past what you have done.  But the law does not require that employment agencies do that.    ... Read Answer