Termination of Employment

Today the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MNDOLI) issued employers yet another reminder not to engage in “wage theft” from employees, and encouraged subscribers to share the message. So, I’ll do my civic duty and share. In short, MNDOLI reminds employers of the following (with my comments below each point):

  • Pay your employees the

clickAs a result of President Obama’s White House Summit on Worker Voice, on October 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Blog announced its new beta website – Worker.gov. This website is, according to the DOL, designed to provide “easy-to-access” solutions for employees who need answers “fast”. The DOL admits that “Even

OfferOn September 28, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed that the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act does not allow an employer to offset liabilities owed by the employee to the employer when determining whether an employee “recovers” a greater sum of wages than the employer tendered in good faith where there is a dispute concerning

MinnesotaJudicialCenterHope is on the horizon for Minnesota restaurants! On September 20, it was announced that the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear the appeal from the novel decision, Burt v. Rackner, Inc. d/b/a Bunny’s Bar & Grill (MN App. June 27, 2016). As I wrote about on August 4, 2016, the plaintiff, Todd Burt, was

When isn’t an asset purchase an asset purchase?  When the purchase of the assets are intended to run the business as a going concern.  So said the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 5, 2016, in Day v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.  So, what’s the big deal?  Well, on a 10,000 foot level, in a typical asset purchase (versus stock purchase), employees may or may not be hired by the new entity. In this case, the buyer, Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., decided to hire 201 of the 658 employees of the seller, Continental Express, Inc.  The rest remained employed by the seller to terminate. Unfortunately, the seller did not provide the remaining employees with the required 60 day Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act notice for a mass layoff. Thus, the terminated employees sued the buyer (deep pockets since the seller was broke), seeking damages under the WARN Act.

Here is where things take a detour, and to those of us on the employer side, defies logic at first blush.  
Continue Reading