The legal landscape for whistleblowers
The Minnesota Legislature recently amended Minnesota’s whistleblower law to revise the statutory definitions of “good faith,” “penalize,” and “report” and, consequently, to extend the reach of the law. To that end, the whistleblower law also now protects employees who report planned violations and violations of the common law. In addition, the amendments created a new cause of action for State government employees penalized for providing information to the Legislature or a constitutional officer, such as the Attorney General, concerning State services.
Both Federal and State courts have applied the amendments to the whistleblower law in an array cases. Although the outcome of some of those cases has followed the traditional path – that is, favoring employers – several significant cases have favored employees. In other words, this area of employment law has become an increasingly robust area for enforcement action.
In Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Education Training, Inc., 767 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2014), for example, the Eighth Circuit interpreted the whistleblower law broadly and consistent with the application of anti-retaliation law generally since Burlington North and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). In particular, the Eighth Circuit held that the employer’s discharge of a plaintiff and subsequent offer of reemployment was a materially adverse employment action because it likely would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.
Similarly, in Weber v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc., 2014 WL 7011353 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014), rev. denied (Mar. 17, 2015), the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the whistleblower law in liberal terms. The plaintiff in that case, a dean at a for-profit university, reported the employer was apparently violating the law by misleading prospective students through inflating job placement statistics, promising the transferability of academic credits, and failing to inform students that felony convictions could disqualify them from externship and job opportunities. Shortly after making the reports, the employer discharged the plaintiff. A jury awarded the plaintiff $36,000 in damages for past emotional distress, $36,000 in damages for future emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. In affirming the jury verdict, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff’s discussions about the plaintiff’s concerns cannot constitute reports under the whistleblower law given identification of issues within the plaintiff’s program was one of the plaintiff’s job duties. In other words, this case confirmed that there exists no blanket job-duties exception to the definition of a report under the whistleblower law.
