join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 4

Does Making Any Complaint About Work Now Turn An Employee Into A Possible Whistleblower Under Minnesota Law?

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on August 9, 2017 in Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, finding that the 2013 amendments to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (“MWA”) abrogated the requirement that a report be made for the purpose of exposing an illegality in order to be protected under the statute. With the court’s narrow ruling in Friedlander, the purpose of an employee’s report is irrelevant to the determination of whether the report can be the basis of a whistleblower claim. In other words, an employee may not need to have been attempting to expose an employer’s suspected illegal conduct in order to bring a retaliation claim in Minnesota

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Six-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Reporting Claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act

On January 20, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision in Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools in a narrow holding that leaves unanswered some important questions regarding whistleblower liability.1

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Six-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Reporting Claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act

On January 20, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ decision in Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools in a narrow holding that leaves unanswered some important questions regarding whistleblower liability.1

Employee Job Duties Are Relevant to Whether an Employee Has Made a Good Faith Complaint Under Minnesota’s Whistleblower Statute.

In a 4-3 decision with a plurality opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota’s whistleblower statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.932, does not contain a job duties exception that bars employees who report illegal conduct or suspected illegal conduct as part of their job duties from bringing a claim under the statute. The employee’s job duties are relevant, however, in determining whether the employee made the report in “good faith” for the purpose of exposing illegal conduct so that the employee’s report qualifies as protected activity under the statute. Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., Nos. A07-584, A07-788, Minnesota Supreme Court (June 24, 2010).
    SORT ARTICLES
  • No Subtopics.