Overcoming Religious Exemptions: How We Fought for an LGBTQ Coach's Rights

At Haller Kwan LLP, we pride ourselves on finding innovative legal solutions to complex employment issues. Today, we want to share a case study that demonstrates our commitment to protecting LGBTQ rights in the face of religious exemptions.

The Situation

Our client, a highly qualified college coach, was recruited by a Christian college in Minnesota. The college actively pursued her, offering her a position and encouraging her to relocate from a western state. Our client, who is a married lesbian, was initially assured that her sexual orientation would not be an issue.

However, upon arriving in Minnesota to start her new job, our client found the college's attitude had dramatically shifted. The institution suddenly rescinded the job offer, leaving our client stranded in a new state without employment.

The Challenge

This case presented a unique challenge. While the Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, religious institutions often enjoy exemptions from such laws. This exemption could have made it difficult to pursue a traditional discrimination claim.

Our Approach

Faced with this obstacle, we had to think creatively. We focused on a lesser-known Minnesota statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.64, which prohibits fraud in inducing workers to move to the state under false pretenses. Our strategy included:

1. Documenting the recruitment process and promises made to our client

2. Highlighting the sudden change in the college's stance upon our client's arrival and revelation she was married

3. Emphasizing the financial and emotional toll on our client due to the relocation

Legal Principles

Our case rested on several key legal principles:

1. Fraudulent Inducement (Minn. Stat. § 181.64): This statute makes it unlawful for an employer to induce someone to move to Minnesota for work through knowingly false representations.

2. Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation: We argued that the college made false representations about the job offer and its policies regarding LGBTQ employees.

3. Promissory Estoppel: We contended that our client reasonably relied on the college's promise of employment to her detriment.

4. Minnesota Human Rights Act: While challenging due to religious exemptions, we included this to address the underlying discriminatory behavior.

The Outcome

Through skilled negotiation and our readiness to litigate, we secured a favorable settlement for our client. The settlement included:

1. Substantial financial compensation

2. Payment of all mediation fees by the college

3. A clean break that allowed our client to move forward with her career

The Takeaway

This case demonstrates that even when faced with seemingly insurmountable legal obstacles, creative thinking and a deep understanding of state-specific laws can lead to positive outcomes. It also serves as a reminder that religious exemptions do not give institutions carte blanche to discriminate or make false promises to potential employees.

At Haller Kwan LLP, we remain committed to fighting for the rights of all workers, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. If you're facing a similar situation, remember: there may be legal avenues available that you haven't considered. If you or someone you know needs help, see if one of our initial consultations suits the need and get in touch!

Note: This case study is a composite of a real case handled by Haller Kwan LLP that's anonymized to maintain confidentiality and for brevity. This is in no way a guarantee or forecast of possible future results. Each case is unique with its own opportunities and risks to weigh.

Clearing the Skies: How We Safeguarded a Pilot's Career Without Going to Court

At Haller Kwan LLP, we believe in finding efficient, effective solutions for our clients, often without the need for lengthy court battles. Today, we want to share a case that demonstrates our commitment to creative problem-solving, thorough research, and swift resolution in employment disputes.

The Situation

Our client, an experienced commercial pilot, found his career in jeopardy due to potentially damaging information in his employment records. After reporting safety concerns to his employer, a company with its own private aircraft fleet, our client was subjected to a questionable performance evaluation and subsequently terminated. The employer then included this negative evaluation in our client's personnel file, which could be accessed by future employers through the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA).

The Challenge

This case presented several unique challenges:

1. The questionable evaluation was conducted under circumstances that our client believed were improper and retaliatory.

2. The negative record threatened our client's future employment prospects in the aviation industry.

3. The employer initially refused to modify or remove the damaging information from our client's file.

Our Approach

Recognizing the urgency of the situation and the potential for long-term damage to our client's career, we took a multi-faceted approach:

1. We collaborated closely with our client to understand the nuances of aviation industry practices and regulations.

2. We conducted thorough research into relevant employment laws and industry-specific regulations.

3. We engaged in strategic communication with the employer's counsel, highlighting potential legal risks and the mutual benefits of a swift resolution.

4. We proposed creative solutions for handling the disputed records that could satisfy both parties' concerns.

Legal Principles

Our strategy relied on several key legal principles:

1. Employment law protections against retaliation for reporting safety concerns

2. Record-keeping requirements and guidelines for employers

3. Minnesota Whistleblower Act provisions for expungement of adverse records (Minn. Stat. § 181.935)

The Resolution

Through persistent negotiation and creative problem-solving, we achieved a favorable resolution for our client without filing a lawsuit. The key components of the settlement included:

1. Removal of the questionable evaluation report from our client's personnel file

2. Modification of the termination reason from involuntary to voluntary

3. Agreement on how to handle future record requests to protect our client's career prospects

4. A monetary settlement to compensate our client for lost wages and emotional distress

The Takeaway

This case demonstrates the power of thorough research, strategic negotiation, and creative thinking in employment disputes. By collaborating closely with our client to understand his industry's nuances and leveraging our knowledge of employment regulations, we were able to protect our client's career without the need for a public and prolonged court battle.

At Haller Kwan LLP, we're committed to finding the most effective path to justice for our clients. Sometimes, that means preparing for court; other times, it means finding innovative solutions outside the courtroom. If you're facing a complex employment issue, remember: with the right approach and willingness to dive deep into the specifics of your situation, it's often possible to clear your professional skies without a legal storm. See if we can help you by setting up an initial consultation that suits your situation.

Note: This case study is a composite of a real case handled by Haller Kwan LLP that's anonymized to maintain confidentiality and for brevity. This is in no way a guarantee or forecast of possible future results. Each case is unique with its own opportunities and risks to weigh.

Turning Injustice into Victory: How a Client's Keen Eye Led to a Significant Settlement

At Haller Kwan LLP, we believe that justice often hinges on the details. Today, we want to share a case that demonstrates how a client's astute observations, combined with our legal acumen, can lead to significant victories in employment discrimination cases in Minnesota.

The Situation

John, a dedicated employee at a manufacturing facility in a small Minnesota town, found himself in a situation that unfortunately remains all too common in American workplaces. As one of the few Black employees at the plant, John had always felt the weight of being different, but he never let it affect his work ethic or his drive to succeed.

On a busy afternoon, John was operating heavy machinery in the production area. As he attempted a routine maneuver, an accident occurred, causing damage to some equipment. John's heart sank. He knew accidents happened in this line of work, but he had never been involved in one before.

His fears were realized when the plant manager arrived. After a brief explanation of the incident, without hesitation or investigation, the manager uttered the words that would change John's life: "Well, you're done."

In that moment, John's world turned upside down. He had just started to feel settled in this job and was making plans for his future. Now, all of that was in jeopardy.

But John wasn't ready to accept this outcome without question. He had a nagging feeling that something wasn't right about his termination. As he reflected on his time at the plant, he remembered conversations with coworkers about similar accidents. He began to wonder: had others been treated the same way for similar mistakes?

The Challenge

John's suspicions were correct. His keen eye and attention to detail had picked up on a disturbing pattern: white employees involved in similar accidents had been given second chances, additional training, or mere warnings. John, however, had been immediately terminated.

This realization turned a simple workplace accident into a clear case of racial discrimination. But proving such discrimination would require more than just John's observations. It would need thorough investigation, compelling evidence, and skilled legal representation.

Our Approach

When John came to us, we recognized the strength of his case immediately. We took a multi-faceted approach:

1. Gathered extensive comparator evidence, documenting similar incidents involving white employees who were not terminated.

2. Obtained a sworn declaration from a current employee, corroborating John's experiences and providing additional evidence of racial bias in the workplace.

3. Prepared a comprehensive legal strategy, leveraging both direct and circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

4. Engaged in strategic negotiation, highlighting the risks the company faced if the case went to trial.

The Resolution

Recognizing the complexity and sensitivity of the case, both parties agreed to mediation led by a former federal judge. This experienced mediator helped both sides see their risks and opportunities with great clarity.

Through skilled negotiation and the strength of our evidence, we secured a significant settlement for John. The settlement was equivalent to 181 weeks of the wages he would have earned had he not been wrongfully terminated. This result not only provided John with substantial financial compensation but also sent a clear message about the consequences of racial discrimination in the workplace.

The Takeaway

This case demonstrates the power of an employee's keen observations combined with skilled legal representation. John's ability to recognize the disparate treatment he experienced was crucial in building a compelling case. It serves as a reminder to all employees in Minnesota to stay aware of their rights and the treatment of their colleagues.

At Haller Kwan LLP, we're committed to fighting for justice and equality in Minnesota workplaces. If you've experienced discrimination at work, remember: your observations matter, and with the right legal support, you can turn injustice into victory. If you need help, see if one of our consultations suits you and get in touch!

Note: This case study is a composite of a real case handled by Haller Kwan LLP that's anonymized to maintain confidentiality and for brevity. This is in no way a guarantee or forecast of possible future results. Each case is unique with its own opportunities and risks to weigh.

Fighting Labor Trafficking: How We Helped an Immigrant Teacher Reclaim Her Rights

At Haller Kwan LLP, we are committed to protecting the rights of all workers, especially those who are most vulnerable to exploitation. Today, we want to share a case that demonstrates our dedication to fighting labor trafficking and wage theft.

The Situation

Sara, a respected educator from North Africa, came to the United States with dreams of sharing her knowledge and contributing to her new community. She was recruited by a religious institution to teach at its affiliated school, with promises of fair compensation and benefits.

However, Sara's dream quickly turned into a nightmare. Despite working full-time hours teaching religious studies to women and children, she wasn't paid a single cent for her labor. To make matters worse, Sara developed a serious health condition during her employment but was denied the promised medical benefits, forcing her to delay crucial treatment.

The Challenges

Sara's case was complex, involving multiple legal issues:

1. Labor Trafficking: The institution had effectively trapped Sara in a situation of forced labor, using her immigration status and unfamiliarity with U.S. laws to exploit her.

2. Wage Theft: Sara was not paid for her work, a clear violation of both federal and state labor laws.

3. Fraud: The institution had made false promises to lure Sara to the U.S. and keep her working without pay.

4. Retaliation: When Sara spoke up about her unpaid wages and other concerns, she faced threats and intimidation.

Our Approach

When Sara came to us, we recognized the gravity of her situation and took immediate action:

1. Comprehensive Legal Strategy: We prepared claims under multiple statutes, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

2. Thorough Documentation: We meticulously gathered evidence of Sara's work, the promises made to her, and the retaliation she faced.

3. Aggressive Advocacy: We initiated litigation against the institution and individuals involved in Sara's exploitation.

4. Compassionate Support: Recognizing Sara's vulnerable position and health challenges, we provided ongoing support throughout the legal process.

Legal Principles

Our case rested on several key legal principles:

1. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): This federal law prohibits forced labor and allows victims to sue their traffickers.

2. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act: These laws require employers to pay at least minimum wage for all hours worked.

3. The Minnesota Whistleblower Act: This law protects employees who report violations of law from retaliation.

4. Common Law Claims: We also pursued claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to hold all responsible parties accountable.

The Outcome

Through persistent negotiation and our readiness to take the case to trial, we secured a favorable settlement for Sara. This settlement provided her with:

1. Compensation for her unpaid wages

2. Additional damages for the suffering she endured

3. A clean break from her exploiters, allowing her to move forward with her life and career

Recognizing Sara's ongoing health challenges and financial hardship, we made the decision to waive our legal fees and provide our representation pro bono.

The Takeaway

Sara's case is a powerful reminder that labor trafficking can happen anywhere, even in respected institutions. It also demonstrates the importance of standing up for workers' rights, regardless of their immigration status or familiarity with U.S. laws.

At Haller Kwan LLP, we are proud to fight for people like Sara, helping them reclaim their dignity and rights. If you or someone you know is facing a similar situation, remember: you have rights, and we're here to protect them. Schedule a consultation to speak with an attorney today.

Note: This case study is a composite of a real case handled by Haller Kwan LLP that's anonymized to maintain confidentiality and for brevity. This is in no way a guarantee or forecast of possible future results. Each case is unique with its own opportunities and risks to weigh.

Standing Up for Patient Safety: How We Defended a Nurse Against Workplace Retaliation

At Haller Kwan LLP, we're committed to protecting healthcare professionals who speak up about patient safety concerns. Today, we'd like to share a firm-handled case study that demonstrates how we support nurses facing retaliation after reporting potential violations of professional standards.

The Situation

Jane, an experienced registered nurse, had been a valued employee at a renowned medical center for over 12 years. She took pride in her work and was deeply committed to maintaining high standards of patient care. However, Jane became increasingly concerned about a troubling trend in her department.

Jane observed that Clinical Assistants (CAs), who were not licensed nurses, were performing duties outside their scope of practice. Specifically, she noticed CAs providing medication education and instructions to patients, their families, and even other nurses outside the department. Jane recognized this as a potential patient safety issue, as CAs lacked the necessary training and licensure for these tasks.

Initially, Jane attempted to address her concerns with her supervisor. However, her concerns were dismissed, with the supervisor suggesting it was merely a matter of nurses thinking they were "better than the CAs." Realizing the gravity of the situation and feeling a professional obligation to ensure patient safety, Jane decided to report the issue through the medical center's compliance line.

The Retaliation

Following her report, Jane experienced a series of retaliatory actions:

1. Her supervisor openly expressed anger about the compliance report, vowing to find out who had made it and stating they would "be sorry."

2. Jane was subjected to a lengthy, confrontational meeting where she faced personal attacks and accusations about her mental health.

3. Colleagues began to isolate Jane, and she found mysterious notes in her locker criticizing her attitude and mental state.

4. When Jane sought to transfer to another department to escape the hostile environment, she faced obstacles and suspicions that her supervisor was interfering with her applications.

Our Approach

When Jane approached our firm, we recognized clear signs of retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). We took the following steps:

1. Thoroughly documented the timeline of events and gathered evidence of the retaliatory actions.

2. Identified potential witnesses who could corroborate Jane's account.

3. Prepared a comprehensive demand letter outlining the legal violations and Jane's experiences.

4. Engaged in negotiations with the medical center's legal team.

Legal Principles and Arguments

In advocating for Jane, we relied on several key legal principles and precedents:

1. Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA): We argued that Jane's report about Clinical Assistants performing duties outside their scope of practice was protected under the MWA. The Act protects employees who, "in good faith, report a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official." (Minn. Stat. § 181.932 subd. 1(1))

2. Broad Definition of "Report": We emphasized that the MWA defines a "report" broadly, including "a verbal, written, or electronic communication by an employee about an actual, suspected, or planned violation of a statute, regulation, or common law, whether committed by an employer or a third party." (Minn. Stat. § 181.931 subd. 6)

3. Protection for Healthcare Quality Concerns: We highlighted that the MWA specifically protects employees who report situations where "the quality of health care services provided by a health care facility, organization, or health care provider violates a standard established by federal or state law or a professionally recognized national clinical or ethical standard and potentially places the public at risk of harm." (Minn. Stat. § 181.932 subd. 1(4))

4. Broad Definition of Retaliation: We argued that the supervisor's actions constituted retaliation under the MWA, which defines a "penalize" action as any "conduct that might dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a report, including post-termination conduct by an employer or conduct by an employer for the benefit of a third party." (Minn. Stat. § 181.931 subd. 5)

5. U.S. Supreme Court Precedent: We cited Burlington Northern v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), which held that an employer's actions are "retaliatory" if they would dissuade a reasonable employee from speaking out in the same way. We argued that the supervisor's verbal abuse, belittling, and other retaliatory actions clearly met this standard.

6. Constructive Discharge: We contended that the hostile work environment created by the retaliation amounted to a constructive discharge from Jane's original unit.

7. Continuing Retaliation: We argued that the interference with Jane's attempts to transfer to other departments within the medical center constituted ongoing retaliation, citing case law such as Lundy v. Park Nicollet Clinic, No. 12-2443 (JRT/SER), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98378, at *37 (D. Minn. July 21, 2014), which held that intentional, heightened scrutiny following protected activity can be evidence of pretext for retaliation.

By grounding our arguments in these specific legal principles and precedents, we were able to build a compelling case for Jane, demonstrating the strength of her claims and the seriousness of the medical center's violations.

The Outcome

Through persistent negotiation and our strong legal arguments, we secured a favorable settlement for Jane. This included:

1. Financial compensation for emotional distress and potential lost wages.

2. A clean break from the medical center, allowing Jane to move forward with her career.

While the journey was challenging, Jane's courage in standing up for patient safety and her own rights prevailed. Her case serves as a reminder that healthcare professionals should never fear retaliation for reporting legitimate concerns about patient care and safety.

If you're facing similar challenges in your workplace, remember: you have rights, and we're here to protect them. Contact us for a confidential consultation tailored to your specific situation.

Note: This case study is a composite of a real case handled by Haller Kwan LLP that’s anonymized to maintain confidentiality and for brevity. This is in no way a guarantee or forecast of possible future results. Each case is unique with its own opportunities and risks to weigh.

Attorneys honored by Super Lawyers

Ben Kwan has been selected to the 2023 Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Previously, Ben was selected as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers six years in a row.

Ted Haller has again been selected to the 2023 Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country.

Ben Kwan makes Super Lawyers cover

Super Lawyers has again named Ted Haller and Ben Kwan 2022 Rising Stars. And Ben Kwan even made the cover!

Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in Minnesota are selected for the designation. The Super Lawyer list is based on a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area.

Can my employer drug test me after 4-20?

Probably not. (Also, how rude)

Minnesota has extremely strict drug testing laws. Tests are only legal in certain circumstances; and a positive test doesn’t mean you can be fired.

Here’s a recent post about Minnesota’s drug drug testing laws.

Attorney Ben Kwan Named Labor and Employment Law Specialist

The Minnesota State Bar Association announced the certification of Benjamin Kwan, of Haller Kwan LLP, as a MSBA Board Certified Labor and Employment Law Specialist. This Certification program is administered by the MSBA and approved by the Minnesota State Board of Legal Certification.

According to the MSBA, the “certified specialist designation is earned by leading attorneys who have completed a rigorous approval process, including an examination in the speciality area, peer review, and documented experience.” The MSBA requires that certified attorneys have demonstrated superior knowledge, skill and integrity in their specific field and allows specialists to use the designation of specialist to advertise their credentials.

This achievement has been earned by fewer than 3% of all licensed Minnesota attorneys. More information about Certified Legal Specialists is at https://www.mnbar.org/members/certification.

What is a wrongful termination?

Like beauty, a wrongful termination is in the eye of the beholder.

As employment lawyers, we are focused on illegal terminations. Illegal termination are always wrongful. But many wrongful terminations aren’t illegal.

Confused? Let us sort it out.

When might a termination feel wrongful, but still be legal?

A termination usually feels wrongful when it’s unfair—like when you spent years loyally working for a company only to be laid off with no severance pay; or when you boss just didn’t like you for some reason; or when you got blamed for a problem that may not have been your fault; or when your supervisor felt threatened by your strong performance; and the list goes on and on.

Here’s another way, albeit over-simplistic, to think about it: Generally, all terminations are legal unless a law makes them illegal.

When does a wrongful termination become illegal?

A termination becomes illegal when it violates a law— and that law could have been passed by lawmakers, or that law could exist as part of judge-created law, known as common law.

Examples of illegal termination usually involve discrimination or retaliation.

What is illegal discrimination?

Lawmakers have listed certain traits, called protected statuses or classes, that are protected from discrimination. Race is an example. Hair color is not an example.

In Minnesota, protected classes include:

• Race

• Age

• Religion

• National origin

• Gender

• Gender identity

• Sexual orientation

• Marital status

• Disability

• And more

What is illegal retaliation?

Illegal retaliation is when your employer fires (or takes some other adverse action) against you because you reported, discussed, or raised concerns about something you think is happening that would be illegal.

Surprisingly, retaliation may be legal if it’s for you reporting something that doesn’t involve illegality. For example, whether retaliation is illegal for reporting something solely unethical—but not necessarily illegal—can be a bit gray (and worth talking to a lawyer).

So, an employer likely engaged in illegal retaliation if it fired you after you reported concerns it was committing a crime; or if you reported possible discrimination; or if you reported sex/race harassment; or you refused to carry out an order because it’s illegal.

Are there other kinds of illegal and wrongful terminations?

Yes. It can be illegal for an employer to fire you for failing a drug test. Or, if you work for the government, it can sometimes be illegal for the employer to fire you based on something you said.

 If you have questions about whether your wrongful termination was illegal, use this link to book a free consultation with a lawyer at Haller Kwan LLP.

Can I afford to sue my former employer?

That was the question presented in a recent New York Magazine article that caught our attention.

 The article—“I Was Harassed at Work. Can I Afford to Sue?”—concerned a New York employee who left a job where they were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race.

That’s illegal. In New York. In the United States. And definitely here in Minnesota.

However, the employee seemed concerned about whether they could afford an attorney and whether it was worth it to pursue any case against the former employer.

Let’s start with paying a lawyer.

How much does a lawyer cost in a discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or wrongful termination case?

You should be heartened to learn that most Minnesota lawyers who help employees often do so on what’s called a contingent-fee basis. This means the lawyer will take a portion of the proceeds he/she is able to achieve for you—whether that’s through a settlement or a verdict.

If the lawyer is not able to achieve any monetary result, then usually you won’t need to pay them.

This puts the risk on the lawyer’s shoulders, and therefore means that lawyers who help employees are careful in choosing which cases to take.

Why might a lawyer decide to take, or not take, my case?

In determining whether to take on a case on a contingent-fee basis, lawyers usually think about two factors:

(1) Did the employer break the law?

This may seem obvious. But it will likely require a long conversation so the prospective lawyer can analyze the facts of the case and then see how they line up with the law.

If the lawyer thinks the employer broke the law, then the next step is determining how much you were damaged by the illegal behavior.

(2) What are the damages?

There are two main sources of damages in most employment cases: lost wages and emotional distress.

If an employer breaks the law and it costs you a job, then the employer can be on the hook for your wages until you find a new job. And even if you find a new job, the former employer might still be on the hook for some wage losses if the new job pays you less.

If an employer breaks the law and it costs you a job, then it can also be on the hook for any emotional distress damages you suffered. It’s helpful to prove emotional distress damages when a health professional, like a therapist, has some documentation of the emotional distress.

Therefore, a case value is often based on the time you expect to be out of a job and the emotional distress.

So, if you got a great job the day after a wrongful termination and the wrongful termination didn’t even bother you, then the case probably isn’t worth much. However, if you expect to be out of work for a long time and are suffering severe emotional distress, then the case can be worth a lot. Or, your wage losses could be really high, but your emotional distress low (and vice versa), which would still make for a high case value.

How do I find out how much my case might be worth?

The best way to get an answer on case value is to talk to a lawyer. You’re welcome to schedule a free consultation with a Haller Kwan LLP attorney by clicking this link.

Is it legal to fire me if I fail a drug test?

Probably not at first!

Minnesota has some of the strongest protections for employees when it comes to drug and alcohol tests. Sometimes the drug test itself might be illegal.

When can an employer drug test me?

An employer can legally test you:

• before you start a job (so long as you received a conditional offer of employment)

• if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol

• if you got hurt on the job

• if you were in a work-related accident

• if you caused a work-related accident

When is it illegal for an employer to drug test me?

An employer cannot:

• drug test you if it doesn’t have a written drug and alcohol testing policy

• randomly drug test you if you don’t work in a safety-sensitive position

• drug test you without any rational basis to do so

• drug test you without you first signing an acknowledgement about its policy

Can an employer fire me after a positive drug test?

Not if it’s your first failed test.

If you failed a drug test for the first time, then your employer needs to offer you the chance to attend drug or alcohol counseling or rehabilitation (at your own expense).

However, your employer can fire you if you refuse counseling or rehabilitation, or if you fail another drug test after participating in rehabilitation or counseling.

What if I have questions about my employer’s drug testing? Or what if I got fired after taking a drug test?

Minnesota’s drug testing laws are complex, but usually helpful to employees. In other words, it’s very easy for employers to break the law when it comes to drug and alcohol testing.

You are welcome to book a free, 20-minute consultation with an attorney at Haller Kwan LLP by clicking this link.