State Court

  • Greene v. Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services, 948 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 2020) (ruling that neither the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act nor the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act enables parties seeking decertification of a labor organization to obtain the contact information of bargaining-unit employees because such data about public employees is private)

  • Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, 944 N.W.2d 441 (Minn. 2020) (affirming that Minneapolis has the authority to adopt and enforce an ordinance that requires all employers, even when they have no physical presence within the city’s boundaries, to provide paid sick leave to employees working in the city)

  • Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2020) (reversing summary judgment for the employer and ruling that harassment claims must be analyzed under a liberal standard – which considers the totality of the circumstances in each case and “must evolve to reflect changes in societal attitudes towards what is acceptable behavior” – and, moreover, that harassment claims ordinarily must be decided via trial rather than summary judgment)

  • Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, 900 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2017) (confirming that protected activity under State whistleblower law need not be for the purpose of exposing an illegality and, moreover, that a good-faith whistleblower report means a report that is not false or recklessly disregarding the truth)

  • Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., 897 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2017) (holding that undocumented employees can successfully prosecute workers' compensation retaliation claims despite admitting that they do not have authorization to work in the United States)

  • Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools,874 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 2016) (affirming that the limitations period for whistleblower claims under State law is 6 years)

  • LaMont v. Indep. School Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2012) (ruling that harassment need not be sexual in order for an employee to have a valid sex harassment claim)
  • Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. 2010) (establishing that the tolling provision of the limitations period for civil rights claims is construed liberally)
  • Midwest Pipe Insulation, Inc. v. MD Mech., Inc., 771 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 2009) (holding that the National Labor Relations Act preempts state law challenges to a union's market recovery program)
  • Johnson Bros. Wholesale Liquor Co. v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, AFL-CIO, 241 N.W.2d 292 (Minn. 1976) (ruling that an injunction against picketing, which prescribed the wording for signs and banners, violated the First Amendment to the Constitution)

  • Queen City Construction, Inc. v. City of Rochester, 604 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (recognizing the authority of government agencies to adopt project labor agreements and enforcing such an agreement accordingly)

  • Hotel Emp. & Rest. Emp. Union Local No. 17 v. Criterion Rest., Inc., 352 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (enforcing the arbitrator’s award, which prohibited the employer from refusing to increase employee wages because of difficult economic conditions)

To view oral arguments handled by our attorneys in cases before the Minnesota Supreme Court, click on the links below: