Employers rightly are concerned with legal expenses;
however, acting as one’s own lawyer in responding to EEOC, MDHR and other
agency charges of employment
discrimination, retaliation or other workplace claims can be a risky
proposition. Things can sometimes go
terribly wrong when these claims are mishandled (e.g. when a single claim blows
up into a class-action lawsuit on behalf of multiple “similarly situated”
individuals). Of equal importance, however, is when important defenses are not raised, forfeiting
opportunities for victory on procedural technicalities and other grounds. Calendar year 2016 has begun with several
poignant examples of clever defense strategies that secured dismissal of
employment lawsuits for employers.
In two recent cases, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which covers Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri and the Dakotas,
dismissed employment discrimination lawsuits because the plaintiffs in those
cases failed to disclose their pending discrimination claims, when they filed
for bankruptcy proceedings. The court
held in each of these cases that allowing the plaintiff to pursue recovery of
money damages based on employment discrimination claims they failed to disclose
to creditors in bankruptcy, would be inconsistent with their representations to
the bankruptcy court. As a result, the court
held that the plaintiff’s must be stopped from proceeding with their
employment claims. This is not an uncommon
scenario in employment litigation, so employers named as defendants should
always keep in mind the potential for dismissing a complaint on grounds that
the plaintiff has filed for bankruptcy without disclosing his or her workplace
lawsuit.
In another interesting case, a former employee filed a
charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and cross-filed it with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
(MDHR). The EEOC took five years
to investigate the charge before dismissing it and issuing a right-to-sue! Shortly after that, the MDHR also dismissed
the charge, and the plaintiff filed a civil action, alleging violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Minnesota Human
Rights Act (MHRA). On the employer’s
motion the court dismissed the MHRA claims due to the five-year delay between
the filing of the charge and the dismissal.
While recognizing that the result may seem harsh, the court noted that
the plaintiff could have requested a dismissal and right-to-sue letter earlier.
Although the plaintiff is still free to
pursue his Title VII claims, this partial dismissal is significant because the
MHRA provides much more favorable remedies to a successful plaintiff.
In another case, a plaintiff’s claims were dismissed because
the plaintiff failed to file his case within 90 days after receiving his
right-to-sue from the EEOC. Under
Minnesota state court rules, an action is begun, or “commenced” when a summons
and complaint are served on the opposing party. Thereafter, the rules provide that the case
does not have to be filed with the court until a reasonable amount of
time after service, not to exceed one year.
In this case, the plaintiff served but did not file his complaint within
the 90 day period following the EEOC’s dismissal of the underlying charge. The defendant moved the court to dismiss the
complaint because the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter specifies, based on language
in Title VII itself, that a civil action must be filed within 90 days. The court agreed, noting that federal law
trumped Minnesota rules of civil procedure in this regard.
In each of the above cases, plaintiffs’ employment lawsuits were
dismissed over what plaintiff lawyers no doubt would complain are
“technicalities,” without the court reaching the merits of their claims. Obviously these recent decisions serve notice
to plaintiffs and their counsel of the need to understand the many state and
federal procedural nuances of employment law.
Just as important, however, is the need for defense counsel and lawyers
who advise employers, to recognize these defenses when they present themselves.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Questions? Arrange to
speak to an experienced employment attorney from Wessels Sherman by contacting Christine
Beggan at (952) 746-1700 or email chbeggan@wesselssherman.com.
