§
Subdivision 1.Generally.
For the purpose of sections 181.931 to 181.935 the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them.
§
Subd. 2.Employee.
"Employee" means a person who performs services for hire in Minnesota for an employer. Employee does not include an independent contractor.
§
Subd. 3.Employer.
"Employer" means any person having one or more employees in Minnesota and includes the state and any political subdivision of the state.
§
Subd. 3a.Fraud.
"Fraud" means an intentional or deceptive act, or failure to act, to gain an unlawful benefit.
§
Subd. 4a.Misuse.
"Misuse" means the improper use of authority or position for personal gain or to cause harm to others, including the improper use of public resources or programs contrary to their intended purpose.
§
Subd. 5.Penalize.
"Penalize" means conduct that might dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a report, including post-termination conduct by an employer or conduct by an employer for the benefit of a third party.
§
Subd. 5a.Personal gain.
"Personal gain" means a benefit to a person; a person's spouse, parent, child, or other legal dependent; or an in-law of the person or the person's child.
§
Subd. 6.Report.
"Report" means a verbal, written, or electronic communication by an employee about an actual, suspected, or planned violation of a statute, regulation, or common law, whether committed by an employer or a third party.
Notes of Decisions
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, 900 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 12× “Minn. Stat. §§ 181.931 -.935 (2016). Edwards Lifesci-ences moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that it could not have violated the Act because Friedlander did not “blow the whistle.”
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 12× “" Minn.Stat. § 181.931, subd. 2 (2008). [3] The statute requires only that the employee report in good faith a violation or suspected violation of the law, and the statute contemplates that the report can be made to "an employer.”
Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 181.931, subd. 3 (1990). We need not decide whether the Whistleblower Act waived the state's immunity in retaliatory discharge actions brought by unclassified employees who are members of the administration's policy-making team.”
Tischer v. Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. of Cambridge, 693 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “014, the legislature intended to create another exception to the certiorari rule by authorizing HRA employees to challenge their dismissal on breach of contract grounds.”
Petroskey v. Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., 847 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Minnesota 1994).
· cites it 6× “The actions asserted against Lommen-Nelson and Cole included claims of: a retaliatory discharge in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.931; negligent retention and supervision; an intentional infliction of emotional distress; a tortious interference with an employment…”
Abraham v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 639 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The Whistleblower Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 181.931~.935 (2000), provides a cause of action for an employee against the employer when the employee is discharged from employment for blowing the whistle.”
Krutchen v. Zayo Bandwidth Ne., LLC, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Minnesota 2008).
· cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 181.931, subd. 2. This case presents an unusual factual scenario.”
Cabinet for Families & Child. v. Cummings, 163 S.W.3d 425 (Ky. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2000), construed a statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.931 , subd. 3, that defined "employer" as "any person having one or more employees in Minnesota and includes the state and any political subdivision of the state," and contained no reference to either agents or persons acting on…”
Moore v. City of New Brighton, 932 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" Minn. Stat. § 181.931 , subd. 5 (2018). This statutory definition, which the legislature adopted in 2013, see 2013 Minn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.