612-877-5000 | Contact us

Extranet Login

EMPLOYMENT LAW

The scope of legislation and court decisions affecting the workplace presents an ever-changing and difficult challenge for employers. An array of state and federal laws intrude on the workplace as never before, creating potential liabilities and pitfalls for the unwary. At the same time, unclear judicial decisions contribute to employers’ confusion about how far the traditional doctrine of employment at will extends. The Employment Law Group is dedicated to guiding employers through the complexities of these issues.

At Moss & Barnett, we believe strongly in the value of prevention. We counsel clients with advice and plans to avoid costly litigation. We offer timely and experienced answers to the difficult employment questions facing businesses every day through preventative services relating to:

  • Affirmative action plans
  • Alcohol and drug testing programs
  • Disability and reasonable accommodation issues
  • Discrimination and sexual harassment management
  • Employee handbooks
  • Employment agreements
  • Executive compensation programs
  • Family and medical leave
  • Non-competition and confidentiality agreements
  • Reductions in force
  • Separation agreements and releases
  • Terminations
  • Unemployment compensation guidance
  • Wage and hour compliance

When contested claims do develop, our trial counsel, experienced in litigating employment claims before state and federal courts and administrative agencies, aggressively represent our clients’ interests. Types of claims regularly litigated by our attorneys include:

  • Breach of duty of loyalty and fiduciary duty
  • Breach of employment contracts and quasi contracts
  • Breach of non-competition and confidentiality agreements
  • Defamation
  • Discrimination (including age, disability, race, national origin, sex and sexual harassment)
  • Employee theft
  • Infliction of emotional distress
  • Injunctions
  • Misappropriation of trade secrets
  • Retaliation
  • Tortious interference with contract
  • Wage and hour claims
  • Whistleblowing

Related

News Headlines


News

Benefits and Compensation

[08/23] SKorea's pension fund eyes US pipeline stake
[08/19] Workplace deaths fall to lowest level since 1992

More...

Employment Practices

[08/19] Workplace deaths fall to lowest level since 1992
[07/29]

More...

Case Summaries

ERISA

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for benefits and for unlawful discrimination under ERISA, as well as several related state law claims, arising from denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits under defendant's Displacement Program, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as, although the district court erred in applying a heightened standard of review and by considering the extra-record evidence that managers helped plan plaintiff's termination prior to the sale of the company, it is nonetheless clear that defendant abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for benefits.

More...

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

More...


4800 WELLS FARGO CENTER | 90 South Seventh Street | Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
P: 612-877-5000 F: 612-877-5999 Contact us