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

by Littler
Contact

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.

The Friedlander Case

Plaintiff James Friedlander brought a whistleblower suit in Minnesota federal court claiming his employer terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting its alleged plan to breach a contract with a third party.  The plaintiff voiced his objection to the same managers who purportedly concocted the scheme to breach the contract.  The company subsequently discharged the plaintiff for policy violations related to expense reports after he was previously warned that such violations could result in termination.

The plaintiff moved for dismissal based on the settled law that a good-faith report under the MWA must be made for the purpose of exposing an illegality.1  The employer argued that since the plaintiff only raised his concerns with managers who already knew about the alleged unlawful activity, he did not make a good-faith report as he did not seek to expose any illegality.  In opposition to the employer’s motion, the plaintiff argued that the 2013 amendments to the MWA, which provided a definition of “good faith,” abrogated the expose-an-illegality requirement.  U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson certified this question of state law to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The History of the MWA and the Good-Faith Requirement

The Minnesota Legislature passed the MWA in 1987 in response to the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ ruling in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987), where the court recognized for the first time the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.2  The MWA essentially codified the Phipps ruling, prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee who, “in good faith,” refuses to participate in activity the employee believes is illegal.  The MWA went further, also prohibiting retaliation against an employee who “in good faith” reports a violation or suspected violation of law.  Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1. (1987).  When initially passed in 1987, the MWA did not define “good faith.”

Since the MWA's enactment, the courts have provided guidance in interpreting what constitutes good faith under the statute.  In Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 202 (Minn. 2000), the court held:

In order to determine whether a report of a violation or suspected violation of law is made in good faith, we must look not only at the content of the report, but also the reporter’s purpose in making the report.  The central question is whether the reports were made for the purpose of blowing the whistle, i.e., to expose an illegality.

Ten years later, a plurality of the court held that an employee’s job duties could be helpful in determining whether a report is made for the purpose of exposing an illegality, noting “when it is the employee’s job to report illegality, there is no basis to infer from the mere fact of a report that the employee’s report was made to ‘blow the whistle.’”  Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220, 228 (Minn. 2010) (involving a whistleblower claim by former in-house counsel). 

The 2013 Amendments

In 2013, the Minnesota Legislature passed a number of under-the-radar amendments to the MWA.  The amendments, which were advocated by the plaintiffs’ bar, significantly expanded whistleblower protection to include reports of violations of common law, such as the breach of contract claim at issue in Friedlander.  The legislature also provided a definition for, among other things, “good faith.” 

The statutory definition of good faith includes “any statements or disclosures” as long as they are not knowingly false or made in reckless disregard of the truth.  Thus, the statutory definition requires only that the employee believe her statement to be true to qualify as a good-faith whistleblower report. 

The Court’s Reasoning in Friedlander

The court began its analysis noting that it previously provided a definition of good faith in Obst to “fill[] a gap in the statute.”  It then held that the 2013 amendments provided a legislative definition that “reports are made in ‘good faith’ as long as those reports are not knowingly false or made with reckless disregard of the truth.”  As a result, any other meaning of “good faith” would contradict the plain meaning of the statute.  The court noted that while Obst required courts to look at the purpose of the report as well as the content, the statutory definition allows inquiry only into the content of that report.

The court opined that any other conclusion would render the 2013 amendments superfluous and run afoul of the presumption that the legislature intends to change the law when it amends a statute.  The court further observed that the statute had always excluded knowingly false or reckless reports from the scope of the MWA’s protections, such that if the amendment changed the law, it must be interpreted to have also changed the Obst definition of “good faith.” 

Employer Takeaways

Even prior to this decision, whistleblowing claims have been among the fastest growing employment claims in Minnesota.  With the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision last year in  Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 874 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. 2016), which expanded the statute of limitations for whistleblower claims to six years, these cases can result in potential exposure long after memories fade and employees leave. Employers should carefully investigate any allegation of wrongdoing by an employee, and document the steps taken in those investigations.  Liability will continue to hinge on whether there was a causal connection between the report and some adverse employment action.  Strong documentation regarding the content of report, as well as the investigation and the reasons for any adverse action against an employee, will remain critically important in avoiding whistleblower liability in Minnesota.

 

 

Footnotes

1 Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 2000).

The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision shortly after the Legislature passed the MWA.  408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987).  

 

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.