
As
most employers are aware, the MHRA is the Minnesota statute that prohibits
discriminatory employment practices. Prior to this amendment to the MHRA,
Minnesota had, since the enactment of the MHRA in 1955 (originally named the Minnesota State Act for Fair Employment Practices), restricted trials for violation of the statute to trials
presided over only by a judge, without the presence of a jury. With this
amendment to the MHRA, Minnesota law on the availability of a jury becomes
consistent with federal law, which has long provided a jury trial right for
employment discrimination claims under Title VII.
The
previous limitation of MHRA employment discrimination claims to trials before
only a judge has traditionally been seen as favorable to employers, with the
generally-held belief that a judge would be more likely to decide a case in a
more objective manner, less driven by emotion, than would a typical jury. Having
had the opportunity to conduct several jury trials, I am able to share the
observation that the typical person likely to serve on a jury in Minnesota (and
most other places) is significantly more likely to come from work and life
experiences making them much more likely to identify with an aggrieved employee
– or former employee – than with an employer (management). My most recent jury
trial experience in Minnesota state court, in two different employment law
trials, found that only a small percentage of the 16 collective jurors in those
two cases held management or business ownership positions (three jurors, to be
precise). A majority of the jurors, on the other hand, either had past
experiences where they believed that they were treated unfairly in an
employment setting, or had close family members with such experiences. It is,
therefore, quite difficult for an employer to ever obtain a “jury of its peers”
in an employment lawsuit. Additionally, jury trials tend to be more expensive
than “bench trials” before only a judge.
It
is certainly understandable why many attorneys who represent employers – and
their clients – are hesitant to cast their fate before a jury composed of many
members who might be predisposed in favor of a suing employee in an employment
dispute. As such, the Minnesota legislature’s changing of a few little words
contained within a single law may have the potential to significantly alter the
legal landscape for Minnesota employers.
No comments:
Post a Comment