Compliance Stuff

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court just handed employers a win by narrowing the application of the “continuing violation” doctrine in discrimination claims under the state’s primary anti-bias law. This doctrine permits plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims after the Maine Human Rights Act’s (MHRA’s) two-year statute of limitations expires if those claims are part of a pattern of discrimination. The Law Court’s July 3 decision in  Andersen v. Department of Health and Human Services  held that an employee’s resignation, occurring more than seven months after the last alleged act of harassment and/or discrimination, was too remote to extend the limitations period. What do you need to know about this new standard? Case Background Plaintiff was a long-time employee at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) who alleged that her supervisor’s increasingly hostile and punitive behavior created a hostile work environment. As a result, she claimed that she developed anxiet...

With so many employees working remotely these days, it can be confusing to determine which state they actually work from – and which laws apply to the employment relationship. Is their home office in a different state than the corporate office they report to? Does the employee travel between locations? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently grappled with these questions under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) and found that an employee who did not reside or work in Minnesota was  not  protected by the state law . In an April 9 decision, the court said remote work coupled with occasional business travel to Minnesota is  not sufficient  to be classified as working within the state under the MHRA . Here’s what employers with remote staff should know about the ruling in  Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA , what it means for Minnesota businesses, and how it might influence your policies and practices in other states.    What Happened? Taking a deep di...