Business Litigation Report: April 2012

04/25/2012 / Business Litigation Practice Group

 

 

 

 

- Taylor v. LSI Corporation of America: A Significant Change in Marital Status Discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
 

- Recent NLRB Developments: New Unionization and Posting Rules

 


Taylor v. LSI Corporation of America: A Significant Change in Marital Status Discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
By Susan E. Tegt
 

A recent decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court heightens the exposure faced by employers for marital status discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).  Under the recent decision in Taylor v. LSI Corporation of America, an employer may now face liability for discrimination if the employee can prove he or she was discriminated against on the basis of the beliefs, situation, or actions of the employee’s spouse or former spouse.  796 N.W.2d 153, 155 (Minn. 2011).  This reverses previous law holding a claim for marital status discrimination under the MHRA existed only where the employee alleged a direct attack on the institution of marriage itself.  
 

 

Recent NLRB Developments: New Unionization and Posting Rules
By James A. Godwin

 

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), promulgated many significant new regulations affecting unionization and regulation of non-union employers after the Employee Free Choice Act was not passed in Congress.  The Administration of the Board decided to go around Congress by adopting much of the substance of the Act under the guise of regulatory changes clarifying the Act's existing provisions. Most significantly, the Board streamlined the unionization process and required even non-union employers to post notices regarding employees’ NLRA rights.  Some of the regulations are the subject of lawsuits brought by the National Chamber of Commerce and others arguing that they are substantively or procedurally deficient. However, the changes are scheduled to take effect on April 30, 2012.  Notably, however, there is some possibility that the Board’s actions have been unconstitutional because of the participation of members appointed through the “recess appointment” process.  One cannot assume that the courts will ultimately invalidate the new regulations, so it is prudent to comply with them until the court’s weigh in. 
 

Business Litigation Department Attorneys:

Email 
952-896-3280
 


Kenneth

Corey-Edstrom

Email
952-896-3380

 

Richard J. "Jay" Reding

952-896-6704

 
John A. Kvinge
Email
952-896-1554

Email 
952-896-3340


Cynthia M. Klaus

Email
952-896-3392

 

 

L. Kathleen Harrell-Latham

Email
952-896-1544

 
Susan E. Tegt
Email
952-896-3325

Email 
952-896-3275 
 

 

Email
952-896-1572

 

 

Michael C. Jackman

Email
952-896-3374 

James A. Godwin
Email
952-896-6701

Email
952-896-3312

 

Email
952-896-3318

 

 

952-896-3353

Email 
952-896-3288

 
 

Lauris A. Heyerdahl
Email
952-896-1529 

 

Glenna L. Gilbert
Email
952-896-3283

This alert is provided as a service to our clients and firm associates. While the information provided in this publication is believed to be accurate, it is general in nature and should not be construed as legal advice.