|
November 2008
Minnesota law protects employee whistleblowers against discharge, discipline, penalty, or any other type of discrimination in their compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Employees are specifically protected when:
1. the employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of law to his employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;
2. the employee is requested by a public body or office to participate in an investigation or a hearing;
3. the employee refuses an employer’s order to perform an action that the employee has an objective basis, in fact, to believe violates any state or federal law and the employee informs the employer that the order is being refused for that reason;
4. the employee, in good faith, reports a situation in which the quality of health care services provided by a health care facility or provider violates a standard established by state or federal law or a professionally recognized national clinical or ethical standard and potentially places the public at risk of harm; or
5. a public employee communicates the findings of a scientific or technical study that the employee, in good faith, believes to be truthful and accurate, including reports to a governmental body or law enforcement official.
In order to prevail on a whistleblower claim the employee does not need to identify the specific law or rule that the employee suspects has been violated as long as there is a federal or state law that is implicated by the employee’s complaint, the employee reported the violation or suspected violation in good faith, and the employee alleges facts that, if proven, would constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law.
Minnesota courts have established an exception to the whistleblower statute. An employee’s report is not protected under the whistleblower act when the employee makes a report to his or her employer and it is a part of the employee’s regular job duties and responsibilities to advise the employer of violations of law. For example, in Michaelson vs. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, the employee was an employment law attorney whose regular duties were to provide legal counsel to the company. The court held that the attorney was not protected by the whistleblower act when he reported violations of law to the company.
As in other types of discrimination cases the employee initially needs to show that the employee engaged in conduct protected by the whistleblower act; that an adverse employment action was taken against the employee by the employer; and that there was some relationship between the two actions. The employer then needs to state a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its action. The employee must then demonstrate that the employer's articulated reason is not credible or that the adverse employment action was likely taken in retaliation for the whistleblower conduct.
REMEDIES:
An employee who has been injured by a violation of the whistleblower law may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages, together with costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and may receive injunctive or other equitable relief as determined by the court.
Sharon Hobbs practices in the areas of business law, employment law and estate planning.
© 2008 Rinke-Noonan.
This article is a general discussion of legal issues and is not intended to be legal advice. We would be pleased to review the specific facts and law regarding any given legal matter.
|
