The POWER 30: Andrew Tanick

Listen to this article

That was the conclusion of a Minnesota Supreme Court case decided in August in Hagen v. Steven Scott Management. The court said the management company did not break the law when an employee who lived on the premises received credit toward rent as wages for her caretaking work.

The company’s attorney, Andrew Tanick, said the court found that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and the Payment of Wages Act defines wages to encompass rent credits. Other state statutes also support such a definition.

“There are several places where the laws wouldn’t say what they do if there were no rent credits as wages,” he said.

The decision was based on statutory and contract interpretation, Tanick said. During the litigation there were “lots of arguments about policy,” but the courts were not receptive.

“This was not a case of a corporation taking advantage, it was a contract freely entered into,” Tanick said.

Tanick, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins, also defends business facing disability access lawsuits under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, including defending owners of restaurants and office buildings in ADA litigation.

The cases are colloquially known as “drive-by” lawsuits due to the alleged practice of plaintiffs driving by businesses in order to spot ADA violations and then filing suit. What’s crucial about these cases is the fee-shifting provisions of the ADA to the defendant.

One of the defenses available to business is the cost of making the demanded changes, said Tanick. Alterations are not required it they are not readily achievable. Sometimes the business will make the repair and then the case may be dismissed as moot. Courts have also dismissed cases on the grounds of standing, where the clients doesn’t have an actual injury, he said.

The pandemic has given businesses plenty to worry about, including whether employers can require vaccinations. But some employers welcome a vaccine mandate because it takes a difficult decision off their hands, Tanick said.

In addition to the pandemic, some business are finding that the social/political climate in the country presents workplace challenges, Tanick said. As exemplified by COVID wars, employers are dealing with more polarized and emotional social/political views among employees, which impact their workplaces and policies.

“Employees are increasingly vocal if they have a social/political disagreement with an employer’s policies, on either end of the political spectrum,” he said.

COVID-related issues like mask and vaccination requirements are obviously part of that, but issues also arise when employees have strong views as to diversity and inclusion policies and initiatives, political elections, immigration and climate change.

Particularly with large employers, some employees strongly feel their employers should be more active with regard to these issues, and some feel their employer should be less active — and when employers do take action, some employees might applaud it while others denounce it, often very vocally.

“This was never really a major issue until recent years,” Tanick said.