Blog

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds No Paramedic Privilege Unless Acting Under Direction of Treating Physician

Sat, 21 Mar 2026 18:09:08 GMT

The Minnesota supreme court ruled this week that the physician-patient privilege in Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d)(2024), does not protect communications between patients and paramedic unless the paramedic is acting under the direction of the treating physician in State v. Smeby, No. A23-0516. In Smeby, the defendant’s vehicle had crashed into another car in Brooklyn Park, causing it to crash into a car in front of it. An officer found the driver unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle with the engine running, airbags deployed, and transmission in drive. When he failed to respond the officer administered Narcan and the driver regained consciousness. Paramedics treating him noted he appeared to be under the influence of a narcotic because he had pinpoint pupils, was acting erratically, and sweating profusely. On the ambulance ride to the hospital he told a paramedic that he had been using “too much” heroin. At the hospital, he told his girlfriend he had used heroin and she shared the statement with a nurse.

The Minnesota supreme court concluded that the physician-patient privilege in Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d)(2024) did not include statements made to paramedics unless they were acting under the direction of the treating physician. Statements made to paramedics are not protected communications because paramedics and not listed among the professionals entitled to the privilege. The court concluded that there was no evidence to support this connection between the paramedic and treating physician. Additionally, the statements made to the girlfriend and, in turn, to the nurse, were likewise not protected by the nurse-patient privilege under Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g), with the court concluding that Smeby’s statements to his girlfriend were not necessary for his treatment. Any changes to these privileges would need to come from the legislature.

Minnesota federal courts have a busy weekend releasing people unlawfully detained by ICE

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 04:26:27 GMT

Minnesota’s federal district courts had a busy weekend granting habeas petitions ordering the release of at least twenty people illegally detained by ICE according to cases reported on the Minnesota State Bar Association listserve. Most detentions were because of warrantless arrests by ICE without legal basis. The orders were issued between January 30 and February 1. ICE arrested noncitizens already in the country without a warrant claiming they were mandatory detentions when they were not. The courts reflected frustration with ICE’s continued illegal arrest practices: “As articulated in Fuentes v. Olson, No. 25-cv-4456 (LMP/ECW), 2025 WL 352455, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 9, 2025). “The Government has now been told nearly 300 times (and counting) that its mandatory-detention scheme is unlawful. Yet as this case illustrates, the Government has not taken “no” for an answer.” These are unconstitutional illegal arrests and detention of people by ICE without a warrant. Twenty orders for release of individuals were issued over one weekend.

New Amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act

Sun, 26 May 2024 22:48:06 GMT

On May 15, 2024, Governor Tim Walz signed into law a host of amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The MHRA protect individuals from discrimination in employment, housing and real property, education, and public services. The MHRA has been law in Minnesota since 1967. The bi-partisan amendments clarified rights under the MHRA and expanded safeguards for individuals against discrimination and take effect on August 1, 2024.

The amendments recognized that discrimination can be because of one or more protected basis including race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, familial status, and age.

The term “disability” was amended to clarify that disability includes an impairment that is episodic or in remission and would materially limit a major life activity when active. This would include cancer, Multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorder, and similar conditions that have flare ups or a reoccurrence. The term “discriminate” specifically includes segregate, separate, or harassment. Discriminatory harassment based upon any protected basis is covered by the MHRA.

Familial status discrimination now includes one or more minors with legal status or custody with the minor’s parent or parents or guardians or designee. It also includes individuals living in the household who are unable to communicate decisions or receive or evaluate information. Discrimination because of personal or commercial credit on account of familial status is also prohibited.

Some procedural amendments to the MHRA serve to clarify that the rights and remedies under the MHRA are in addition to other rights, remedies and claims available under the law. The MHRA is not exclusive and does not bar other claims available to individuals. This issue had arisen in the context of individuals with worker’s compensation claims or other common law civil claims. Additionally, the time for individuals to start a lawsuit after the Minnesota Department of Human Rights has made a determination of no probable cause for a charge of discrimination has been extended to 90 days instead of 45 days. The 90 days lines up with the federal time for commencing a lawsuit from a right to sue issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for federal discrimination charges. The commissioner of human rights will need to issue a decision within a year in cases that have not been tolled.

The law governing discrimination against individuals with service animals in public places, such as hotel and restaurants, was clarified to cover all individuals with proper service animals.

The new amendments also provided exemptions from the MHRA for discrimination in employment for fraternal corporations, associations, or societies organizations when religion is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment. The amendments clarified that not for profit religious associations have constitutional First Amendment Constitutional protection for religious exemptions for actions regarding education, employment, housing and real property, or use of facilities, as well as certain business contexts.

In terms of penalties and damages recoverable, the MHRA was amended to direct the court to impose a civil penalty be paid to the state by violators. It clarified that the court shall order violators to pay compensatory damages, including mental anguish or suffering, up to three times the actual damages sustained. The amendment removed the $25,000 cap on punitive damage awards, except when a political subdivision such as a county, city or town, is the violator. Other remedies available to the court were also included in the amendments that help ensure a fair result when violations occur.

The 2024 amendments to the MHRA will provide additional protections for Minnesotans who have been discriminated against in employment, housing and real property, education and public accommodations and moving forward. This article provides a general summary and people should seek independent legal advice for individual situations.

Fiebiger Publishes Op-Ed Piece in Star Tribune

Mon, 08 Apr 2024 22:24:05 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

In February, 2024, I authored an op-ed piece on gun violence that was published by the Star Tribune. Here is the link: https://www.startribune.com/counterpoint-restricting-ammunition-is-our-leverage-against-gun-violence/600346585/

New Law Bans Non-Compete Agreements in Minnesota

Sat, 16 Dec 2023 22:39:55 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

Minnesota has banned non-compete agreements effective July 1, 2023. The new law provides that “Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable.” The law affects employment contracts that included restrictive covenants for employee agreements. A covenant not to compete does not include a nondisclosure agreement, or agreement designed to protect trade secrets or confidential information. A covenant not to compete also does not include a nonsolicitation agreement, or agreement restricting the ability to use client or contact lists, or solicit customers of the employer. Covenants not to compete in connection with the sale or dissolution of a business are not affected. The new law is set out in Minnesota Statute Section 181.988.

The ban on non-compete covenants in employee agreements does not apply to agreements entered before July 1, 2023.

Five Tips for Employees Facing Discrimination, Harassment, or Illegal Conduct

websites@hibu.com (Hibu Websites) — Mon, 23 May 2022 01:40:05 GMT

This is a subtitle for your new post

Employees facing hostile working conditions such as sexual harassment, discrimination, or other illegal conduct can take steps to protect themselves and their rights. Here are five tips.

1. Document incidents and events. Keep a written journal. When events occur that are hostile, offensive or discriminatory, make a note to record the date, time and circumstances. Keep a record of offensive comments and situations and who you have talked to about it. You can record it in a spiral notebook, a calendar, or notes. Consider maintaining it in written form so you own it. An electronic method is fine, so long as you have ownership of the device.

2. Make sure your documentation remains accessible if the employment ends. In other words, do not leave it at the office or on a work computer or device.

3. Obtain a copy of the company’s human resources policies and read the section on reporting complaints. Employees are required to follow reasonable policies for reporting complaints of harassment and discrimination for investigation and resolution. Employees are required to report discriminatory harassment by co-workers and an be important harassment by supervisors. If a complaint is made, keep a copy.

4. Request a copy of your personnel record. In Minnesota, employees have the right to review their personnel record every six months while employed. If separated from employment, employees have the right to request a copy from the employer at no charge. The request must be in writing. Employers must comply with a written request 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.

5. Consider recording conversations. Generally, conversations can be recorded so long as one party to the conversation consents. While not practical for all situations, recordings can dispel later disputes about what was said.

Fiebiger Re-Appointed by Governor Walz to Merit System Council

7016469807 — Sat, 23 Apr 2022 15:30:09 GMT

Stephen Fiebiger was re-appointed to the Merit System Council by Governor Tim Walz for a three-year term. Fiebiger’s appointment is from March 30, 2022 to January 6, 2025. The Minnesota Merit System announces civil service examinations for employment in the social services and human services agencies in 42 of Minnesota’s 87 counties. The Merit System Council hears personnel appeals, sets policy for administration of examinations, and reviews classification and compensation plans and proposed rule changes according to the news release from Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan.

Minnesota Supreme Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Wrongful Death Case

websites@hibu.com (Hibu Websites) — Fri, 08 Oct 2021 18:56:14 GMT

Minnesota Supreme Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Wrongful Death Case

The Minnesota supreme court recently reversed a summary judgment in a wrongful death negligence case involving a woman who died after falling down a flight of stairs claimed to have been negligently maintained. Examining proximate cause and circumstantial evidence under the summary judgment standard, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed so that a jury could infer the poor and degraded conditions of the stairs was a substantial factor in causing the fall. The court rejected other theories as being dispositive of the case, including the absence of an eye witness. The case is Staub v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, et al., Case No. A20-0267.

Court of Appeals Decision Allows More Flexibility for Proving Discrimination

Sun, 08 Aug 2021 18:30:07 GMT

Minnesota Human Rights Act Case Involving Age Discrimination

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a precedential decision on July 26, 2021 in an age discrimination case under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) containing helpful language for proving the third and fourth elements of the prima facie case. The four-part prima facie case must be established for most discrimination claims under the McDonnel Douglas test used by the courts. The case is Henry v. Independent School District #625, a/k/a St. Paul Public Schools, Case No. A21-0004. For the third element requiring evidence the employee suffered an adverse employment action, the Court observed that "the concept of an adverse employment action is broader than proof of discharge or constructive discharge, and may also be proved if an employee presents evidence that, when considered cumulatively, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude the employee suffered a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment discharge." Op. at 15. The Court focused on the use of three performance evaluations in less than a year; exaggeration of trivial performance issues to support discipline; placement of the employee on an unachievable PIP with the intent that the employee would fail or resign; issuance of a letter threatening termination if she didn't accomplish the goals of the unachievable PIP; more harsh reprimands than for other employees; denied opportunity to attend a training session; and comments by the lead manager creating an environment where employees were reluctant to report discriminatory conduct. Id. at 15-16. The cumulative effect of these actions caused the employee to suffer an adverse employment action.

The Court also used a more flexible standard for the fourth element by ruling it could be satisfied upon a showing that circumstances exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination, in lieu of having to show the employee was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. Id. at 14. In age cases this required replacement by a younger person. Hence, evidence of pretext can be used to satisfy this element if the employee has not been replaced by a person outside the protected class. This may well gain review by the supreme court, but since the decision was designated as precedential by the Court of Appeals, it will be useful until the supreme court rules otherwise.

Absentee ballots available for voting in primary and general elections

Sat, 18 Jul 2020 18:48:00 GMT

Minnesotans can vote by mail without having to personally visit their local polling site for the upcoming primary election on August 11, 202 and general election on November 3, 2020. You can have a mail in ballot sent to you by visiting mnvotes.org and requet an absentee ballot be mailed to you..

Minnesota supreme cout orders new defamation trial

Sun, 05 Jul 2020 22:08:00 GMT

On February 26, 2020, the Minnesota supreme court ordered a new trial in Larson v. Gannett Company, Inc., a media defamation case handled by Mr. Fiebiger, reversing a previous decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Larson claimed he was defamed by statements published by KARE 11 and The St. Cloud Times following his arrest for the murder of Cold Sping police officer Tom Decker in November, 2012 and a news conference and news release by law enforcement. The supreme court ruled that the fair reporting privilege applied to five statements published by the defendants, but that a new trial was required to determine whether the privilege had been defeated or abused. The district court had not instructed the jury on the factors to consider in determining whether the privilege had been abused. The supreme court adopted Larson's argument that the falsity instruction given at trial was insufficient and incomplete to determine whether the privilege had been defeated. This should be decided by a jury. The media defendants' petition for rehearing was denied by the suprme court on March 30, 2020. The supreme court's opinion is published at 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020). A new trial date in Hennepin County District Court has not been set.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Gay and Transgender Employees Protected from Employment Discrimination by

Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:07:00 GMT

In a landmark decision today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gay and transgender employees are protected from discrimination in employment by their employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. The 6-3 decision is Bostock v. Clayton County (17-1618) with the majority opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alioto, Thomas, and Kavenaugh dissented.

Court Filing and Discrimination Charge Filing Deadlines Suspended During COVID 19 Pandemic

Thu, 23 Apr 2020 03:44:00 GMT

On April 15, 2020, Governor Walz signed into law HF 4556 suspending all civil court filing deadlines, statutes of limitations, and other time periods prescribed by law in the district and appellate courts. The limitations are suspended until 60 days after the end of the peacetime emergency from the COVID 19 pandemic.

Today, April 22, Governor Tim Walz issued Executive Order 20-39 that protects and preserves the legal rights of individuals under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) to pursue claims of discrimination that may be affected by the COVID 19 pandemic. To ensure that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights can meet the ongoing needs presented, and to protect the health, safety, and well-being of Minnesotans who have experienced discrimination, the Governor’s Executive Order tolls the deadlines to file a verified charge of discrimination and modifies filing requirements during the peacetime emergency as follows:

1. In any instance where the one-year statute of limitation to file a charge of discrimination under the MHRA, Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.28, subd. 3(a) during the peacetime emergency, the charge will be considered timely if it is filed with the Commissioner of Human Rights within 60 calendar days after the termination of the peacetime emergency, or February 15, 2021, whichever is earlier.

2. After March 13, 2020, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) is authorized and directed to:

a. Accept as a “verified charge,” as provided in Minnesota Statute Section 363A.28, subd. 1, and Minnesota Rules 5000.0050, subpart 12, a charge of discrimination that is signed, by hand or electronically, with an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury.

b. Serve charges, determinations, and dismissal orders electronically, rather than by first class or certified mail, if the receiving party agrees to receive such information electronically, and provides the Department of Human Rights with an email address for receipt.

c. Extend from 20 days to 60 days the requirement for respondents to submit an answer to a verified charge of discrimination, except when an inquiry is required under Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.28, subdivision 6(a) and (b), as imposed by Minnesota Statute Section 363A.28, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules 5000.0500, subpart 1.

d. Extend from 10 days to 30 days the time for parties to submit a request for reconsideration of a determination from the date it is received as imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.28, subdivision 6 (c) and Minnesota Rules 5000.0700, subpart 1.

The Executive Order allows individuals to preserve their claims of discrimination that may otherwise lapse during the COVID 19 peacetime emergency and remains in effect until the peacetime emergency is terminated or until it is rescinded by proper authority. Stay tuned.

Fiebiger Wins Contested Guardianship Trial

Sun, 08 Mar 2020 17:19:00 GMT

On January 28, 2020 the Hennepin County District Court, Probate Court Division, issued an Order denying a petition for guardianship in a contested case in which Stephen Fiebiger represented the proposed Ward as court-appointed attorney. The case was tried in November, 2019, after the Court granted Fiebiger’s motion for a new trial following a previous trial in March and Order appointing a temporary limited guardian of April 23, 2019. The case is In re Guardianship of Roscious Woods, Court File No. 27-GC-PR-19-92.

Office Move on October 1, 2019

Fri, 04 Oct 2019 03:21:00 GMT

My law office moved down the street to 3000 West County Road 42, Suite 310, Burnsville, MN on October 1. We're at the corner of West County Road 42 and Southcross in the former Klein Bank Building with free parking. I look forward to serving clients from my new location.

Fiebiger Re-Appointed to Merit System Council

Tue, 02 Jul 2019 22:08:00 GMT

On June 27, 2019 Governor Tim Walz re-appointed Stephen C. Fiebiger to the state Merit System Council. The three-member panel hears personnel appeals, sets policy for administration of examinations, reviews classification and compensation plans and proposed rule changes. Fiebiger's term begins July 2, 2019 and ends January 3, 2022. Fiebiger was previously appointed to the Merit System Council by Governor Mark Dayton.

Fiebiger Re-Appointed to Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure

Sat, 31 Mar 2018 03:47:00 GMT

Steve Fiebiger was among a select group of lawyers, judges, and law professors re-appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure this week by an Order issued by the Chief Justice. The committee advises the Supreme Court on proposed amendments and rule changes for civil appeals. Fiebiger, who practices civil litigation, including trials and appeals, handles appeals before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. He was re-appointed until the end of 2020.

Appellate Practice in Employment Law Cases

Sat, 17 Mar 2018 16:12:00 GMT

On Tuesday, March 13, 2018, I was pleased to moderate a distingushed panel of four lawyers at the MN Chapter of the National Employment Lawyer's Association's continuing legal education lunch program on appellate practice in employment law cases held in Minneapolis. The program focused on strategies for effectively writing appellate briefs, presenting oral aruments, and participating as amicus curiae in employment law appeals. The body of employment law affecting employees and employers is often shaped by our appellate courts and presenting sound positions and arguments on appeal can often mean the difference in estabishing good law or bad law affecting the rights of workers in Minnesota.

Inherent Well-Known Risks of Skiing May Not Include Unexpected Causes

Sun, 21 Jan 2018 17:29:00 GMT

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that an injured skier or snow boarder has a claim for personal injury from a collision when the injuries occur from a skier or snow boarder’s conduct that is so reckless or inept as to be wholly incapacitated. The Court also ruled that a claim for personal injury is not barred when a skier or snow boarder enlarges the well-known, inherent risks of those activities under circumstances when a skier is crushed from above.

In Soderberg vs. Anderson, Case No. A17-0827, decided on January 16, 2018, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries when a snow boarder crashed into her from above after going off a jump. Neither the skier nor snow boarder saw each other before the impact. The Court ruled that, under the circumstances, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk may not bar the claims given the circumstances surrounding the collision. Primary assumption of the risk is a defense to negligence when parties voluntarily enter into a relationship in which the plaintiff assume “well-known, incidental risks.” Id. Primary assumption of the risk is typically applied in cases involving inherently dangerous sporting activities. Id. This applies when a person who voluntarily takes a risk (1) knows of the risk, (2) appreciates the risk, and (3) has a chance to avoid the risk. Id. This often includes activities such as skiing and snow boarding.

In light of the question of whether the snow boarder was so reckless or inept to be incapacitated, or had enlarged the well-know, inherent risks of skiing by the skier being crushed from above, the claim could proceed. The Court reversed the St. Louis County District Court which had dismissed the case by summary judgment.

Right to Personnel Records

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:10:00 GMT

Employees and former employees have the right to obtain a copy of their personnel records from their former employer. Under Minnesota Statute Section 181.961, a current or former employee can make a written request to the employer for the employee's personnel record. The employer may not charge a fee for the copy. Obtaining a copy of the personnel record is often helpful in reviewing a situation for a possible case and is also useful for unemployment claims and filing charges of discrimination or retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR).

Punitive Damages Panel

Sat, 18 Nov 2017 04:48:00 GMT

I was pleased to serve on a panel of lawyers at the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, on punitive damages. The semiar focused on when to seek punitive damages, procedures, obstacles, and grounds for seeking punitive damages. Punitive damages can be awareded in certain cases to punish the offender. In Minnesota. cases that do not have a statutory provision for punitive damages must bring a motion to amend the complaint for punitive damages before they can be sought. In some cases, a punitive damages claim is proper and a mechanism for punising offenders in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 549.20. for a deliberate disregard for the rights and safety of others.

Upcoming Guest Appearance

Tue, 10 Oct 2017 00:19:00 GMT

I will be a guest on Channel 15 cable on 'Law Talk' from Thomson Reuters studios on Tuesday October 17, 2017 discussing employment law and employment discrimination. Hope you can join us.

Issue Editor for July/August Employment Law Issue of The Hennepin Lawyer

Sat, 15 Jul 2017 02:10:00 GMT

I had the pleasure to edit the July/August issue of The Hennepin Lawyer, the magazine of the Hennepin County Bar Association, focusing on Employment Law. Check out my Inside View column on Fairness and Respect in the Workplace. Here is the link:

https://cloud.3dissue.com/75702/119928/140516/THL-2017-Jul-Aug/index.html?r=67

A downloadable copy is at:

https://cloud.3dissue.com/75702/119928/140516/THL-2017-Jul-Aug/index.html?r=67

New Defamation Trial Ordered for Man Cleared of Killing Cop

Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:38:00 GMT

A Hennepin County District Court Judge has granted our motion and ordered a new trial and ruled that certain statements were false as a matter of law in one of my media defamation cases. The Court determined that the jury should have been instructed on defamation by implication for the statements. This puts our case back into court following an adverse jury verdict last November. Read more in an article in the Minnesota Lawyer at the link: http://minnlawyer.com/2017/06/19/judge-orders-new-defamation-trial-for-man-cleared-of-killing-cop/

Tips and Tactics for Trial

Thu, 13 Apr 2017 03:53:00 GMT

On April 11, 2017, I moderated a discussion panel for the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment LawyersAssociation on 'Tips and Tactics for Trial.' The panel consisted of experienced trial lawyers Ashwin Madia, Rachhana Srey and Christopher Kuhlman. The discussion focused on successful tips and practices for trial before state and federal courts involving jury and non-jury trial trials. Jury selection and make- up and voir dire considerations were among the topics explored. The continuing legal education program was held at the Minnesota Association for Justice conference center in Minneapolis.

Non-Compete Agreements in Minnesota

Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:03:00 GMT

Non-compete agreements typically arise at the start of employment or when an employee is separated from employment. Non-compete agreements are disfavored by courts in Minnesota but will be enforced if they serve a legitimate interest and are no more restrictive than necessary. Non-compete agreements must be supported by consideration and typically be entered before the start of employment. The restrictions in terms of duration and geographical scope must be reasonable. These factors can vary depending on the industry involved and facts of each case.

In determining whether to enforce a particular non-compete agreement or provision, the court balances the employer's interest in protection from unfair competition against the employee's right to earn a livelihood. Other factors may be assessed, and the court sometimes can use the “blue pencil” doctrine that allows the court to modify or remove unreasonable terms to allow the agreement to be enforceable.

Non-compete agreements raise complicated legal issues that should be reviewed with counsel when disputes arise.

Eligibility for Family Medical Leave

Sun, 15 Jan 2017 17:01:00 GMT

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to twelve weeks of leave from work for eligible employees. To be eligible under the FMLA, an individual must have been employed by the employer for at least 12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12 month period. Employers must have 50 or more employees for 20 or more calendar weeks. The employee, or a spouse, or child, must have an eligible serious health condition. The FMLA provides that upon return from a covered leave, employers must return employees to the same or equivalent position. The leave is not required to be paid leave. The also law protects employees against retaliation or interference by employers when FMLA benefits are sought. Employees who think they may be eligible for FMLA leave should contact their human resources department. Please note that these are general concepts and each situation is different.

When is it Time to Appeal?

Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:32:00 GMT

In state court in Minnesota, the time to appeal from a judgment or order in a civil case is generally governed by Rule 104.01, Subdivision 1 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. This Rule sets the time to appeal at 60 days after entry of judgment and within 60 days from an appealable order after 60 days after service by any party of written notice of its filing. Be aware that some appeal times are set by statute and the 60 day appeal time applies “[u]nless a different time is provided by statute.” See Minn. R. Civ. App. Pro. 104.01, Subdivision 1.

If a party serves a timely and proper post trial motion, the time for filing the appeal of the order or judgment that is the subject of the motion is not triggered until service by any party of notice of filing of the order disposing of “the last such motion outstanding.” See Minn. R. Civ. App. Pro. 104.01, Subd. 2. Hence, a timely post trial motion tolls the appeal time until the final order disposing of the post-trial motion is issued. If no post-trial motion is involved, then the 60 day time to appeal would apply.

Voting Rights in Minnesota

Fri, 14 Oct 2016 03:57:00 GMT

You have the right to take time from work to vote by state law and be paid by your employer. Your employer cannot require you to use personal leave or vacation time (see Minnesota Statutes 204C.04 and 204C.08 Subd.1d). If you or a family member need assistance voting you can have someone assist you. You can bring a family member, friend, neighbor or anyone you choose to help you vote. The only exception is that you can't get help from your employer, your union or a candidate for office.

Your assistant can help you in all parts of the voting process, including in the voting booth. Helpers, however, can only physically mark ballots for up to three voters in an election. You can show your ballot privately to an election judge to check that it is correctly marked.

Helpers are not allowed to influence your vote or share how you have voted with others.

More specific information is available on the Minnesota Secretary of State website at: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-day-voting/get-help-voting/

Be sure to get out and vote. If you are in line to vote by 8:00 p.m. you will be allowed to vote.

Wrongful Death Claims in Minnesota

Tue, 30 Aug 2016 03:35:00 GMT

When someone dies because of the negligence of an individual or company, a claim for wrongful death may be available. Claims for wrongful death in Minnesota, however, are somewhat different from other negligence claims in a couple of important ways. One, the law requires that a trustee be appointed by court Order following a petition in order to prosecute the claim for wrongful death. The trustee must be a spouse or next of kin of the deceased person. Second, claims for wrongful death must be commenced within three years after the wrongful death. This means a lawsuit must be started by the trustee against the negligent party who caused the wrongful death. This is a critical timeframe to be preserved by timely investigating the claim in advance so that the claim can be preserved and timely brought on a lawsuit.

I am experienced in handling wrongful death claims. If you have questions about your situation, call me at (952) 746-5171 or email me at fieblaw@earthlink.net. This blog includes general information and is not intended to cover all situations or provide individual legal advice.

Filing Charges for Employmentt Discrimination

Mon, 04 Jul 2016 19:30:00 GMT

If you have been the victim of discrimination in employment because of race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender, pregnancy, or religion, you can file a charge of discrimination with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) or the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A timely filed charge will preserve your claim.

There are certain time frames within which you need to file your charge. A charge must be filed within 300 days of the discrimination to preserve federal claims of discrimination. If the charge is filed within 300 days it can be cross-filed with the MDHR so you don’t need to file two separate charges. Untimely charges risk being dismissed.

In order to preserve state claims of discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act a charge must be filed within one year from the discrimination. A state claim of discrimination can also be started by way of a lawsuit directly, whereas this is not an option for federal claims.

The Minneapolis office of the EEOC is at (612) 335-4000 or toll free at 1-800-669-4000. The MDHR in St. Paul is at (651) 539-1100 or toll free at 1-800-657-3704.

There are exceptions to these time frames for federal employees who are typically required to notify the EEO office or contact within 45 days of the discrimination. This blog includes general information and is not intended to cover all situations or provide individual legal advice. If you have questions about your situation you may call me at (952) 746-5171.

Looking Back

Sat, 04 Jun 2016 16:01:00 GMT

As President of the Brain Injury Association of Minnesota I crossed paths with people from all over the country dedicated to bettering the lives of survivors of traumatic brain injury, including former President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady.

How Marriage Dissolution Changes Spousal Beneficiary Designations in Wills and Life Insurance...

Sun, 15 May 2016 16:11:00 GMT

What happens to dispositions made to spouses in a Last Will and Testament when a married couple divorces? Under Minnesota Statute Section 524.2-804, the provision in the Will leaving property to a former spouse is revoked and no longer effective after a marriage dissolution. Likewise, the nomination of the former spouse as personal representative or fiduciary capacity is revoked and not effective after a divorce. The other provisions of a Will generally remain effective following a divorce.

A 2002 amendment also affected beneficiary designations for spouses who are later divorced. Under the amendment, an insured’s beneficiary designation of a spouse made during a marriage is revoked by operation of law upon the dissolution of the marriage. Spouses designated as beneficiaries of life insurance policies during a marriage are no longer effective after a marriage dissolution. This was the conclusion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals in the case of In re Life Insurance Policy No. 1642947-2, Issued to Brenda DeJoode, 2013 WL6978496. In the case, Brenda DeJoode and Mark D. Main purchased a life insurance policy during their marriage insuring DeJoode’s life. The policy identified Main as the primary beneficiary and DeJoode’s estate as the contingency beneficiary upon DeJoode’s death. The beneficiary designation was never changed. DeJoode died after the couple’s divorce and Main sought to collect the life insurance proceeds from the policy. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Minn. Stat. Sec. 524.2-804, Main lost his beneficiary designation when he and DeJoode were divorced. It is therefore important to re-visit beneficiary designations for life insurance policies, IRAs, and similar accounts, in addition to a Will, after a divorce to update the beneficiary provision so that the proper disposition occurs.

When is it Time to Appeal?

Sat, 07 May 2016 16:47:00 GMT

In state court in Minnesota, the time to appeal from a judgment or order in a civil case is generally governed by Rule 104.01, Subdivision 1 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. This Rule sets the time to appeal at 60 days after entry of judgment, and from an appealable order within 60 days after service by any party of written notice of its filing. Be aware that some appeal times are set by statute and the 60 day appeal time applies “[u]nless a different time is provided by statute.” See Minn. R. Civ. App. Pro. 104.01, Subdivision 1.

Check out my piece on "When is it Time to Appeal" in the May/June, 2016 issue of The Hennepin Lawyer magazine of the Hennepin County Bar Association. It's at page 29 of the magazine at: https://cloud.3dissue.com/75702/119928/140516/THL2016-May-Jun/index.html.

Official Immunity Issues When Suing Government Employees

Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:53:00 GMT

One issue that arises in personal injury cases against government employees, such as county or city employees, is the doctrine of official immunity. Common law official immunity protects government employees from liability for civil tort claims. In determining whether official immunity applies, the court looks to the nature of the act or actions by the government employee resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

Whether the decisions leading to the conduct were discretionary or ministerial. Whether an act is ministerial or discretionary affects the official immunity analysis by the court.

The law of common law official immunity has been developed by our courts. A duty is discretionary if it involves more individual professional judgment that necessarily reflects the professional goal and factors of a situation. A duty is ministerial if it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely the execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts. The duty must dictate the scope of the employee’s conduct.

Official immunity does not apply: (1) when a ministerial duty is either not performed or is performed negligently, or (2) when a willful or malicious wrong is committed. Malice means nothing more than the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification or excuse, or, otherwise stated, the willful violation of a known right. Each case requires looking at the duties of the government employees and circumstances surrounding the events supporting the clam.

I argued the official immunity issue before the Minnesota Court of Appeals on April 20, 2016 in a case involving personal injuries sustained by a client while a vulnerable adult patient at the Ramsey County Detox Center. My client had his right elbow broken and wrist injured during an escort by Detox staff to a seclusion room. Ramsey County asserted that the acts of its employees were protected by official immunity and we argued they were not. A decision by the three-judge panel will be issued within ninety days. The case is Marc Hall v. Ramsey County, et al.

Time to Get Started in a Busy April

Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:39:00 GMT

Greetings - This is my initial blog post for my website from my law office in Burnsville, MN. I plan to provide useful and informative information about the areas of my law practice and affecting the areas of my practice from time to time for the reader's information. These will include pieces on employment law, appeals, civil litigation, guardianship and conservatorship law, and general information. My background as a lawyer for over 32 years has given me experience in all of these areas. I look forward to being of service to provide general information on my blog site. This should not be construed as legal advice but as general information.

I am a member of the board of directors of the Minnesota Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association (MN-NELA). We hold a monthly meeting in Minneapolis and on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, I will be co-moderating a panel with attorney Frances Baillon of Minneapolis entiteld "Mediation and Settlement Conferences: What works and what doesn't." Our distinguished panel will include former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, Gina K. Janieiro, managing partner at Jackson Lewis, and Megan Kelly, Employee Relations Counsel at Target Corporation. The panel will explore settlement conferences and mediation from the inside out with an experienced employment law mediator, defense counsel, and in-house counsel.

On April 15, 2016, I will be co-presenting with attorney Douglas Micko of Minneapolis at the Eighth Circuit Employment Law Update in Kansas City, MO, focusing on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affecting employment law. This is part of a conference presented by the Eighth Circuit Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association and is held every two years. Several decisions affecting employment law have come out in the past two years and the landscape for decisions will be unclear with only eight members on the Court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. President Obama has nominated D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia, but his nomination is stalled at the Senate. Judge Garland is 63-years old and his background includes working as a federal prosecutor in the Oklahoma City bombings. Cases ending in a 4-4 "tie" at the Supreme Court result in the previous decision remaining intact. It will be important for the ninth spot to be filled soon so that the Court can fully conduct its business.

Thank you for reading and visiting my blog. I look forward to you visiting again.

Greetings Visitors!

Thu, 09 Jul 2015 14:26:00 GMT

This is the first post in my blog. Please note that nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice but for information only. Please visit again.