§
Subdivision 1.Prohibited action.
An employer shall not discharge, discipline, penalize, interfere with, threaten, restrain, coerce, or otherwise retaliate or discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:
(1) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an 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, hearing, inquiry;
(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 or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to 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, organization, or health care provider violates a standard established by federal or state law or a professionally recognized national clinical or ethical standard and potentially places the public at risk of harm;
(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; or
(6) a state employee communicates information that the employee, in good faith, believes to be truthful and accurate, and that relates to state programs, services, or financing, including but not limited to fraud or misuse within state programs, services, or financing, to:
(i) a legislator or the legislative auditor;
(ii) a constitutional officer;
(iii) an employer;
(iv) any governmental body; or
(v) a law enforcement official.
The disclosures protected pursuant to this section do not authorize the disclosure of data otherwise protected by law.
[See Note.]
§
Subd. 2.Disclosure of identity.
The identity of any employee making a report to a governmental body or law enforcement official under subdivision 1, clause (1) or (4), is private data on individuals as defined in section 13.02. The identity of an employee providing information under subdivision 1, clause (2), is private data on individuals if:
(1) the employee would not have provided the information without an assurance that the employee's identity would remain private, because of a concern that the employer would commit an action prohibited under subdivision 1 or that the employee would be subject to some other form of retaliation; or
(2) the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision reasonably believes that the employee would not have provided the data because of that concern.
If the disclosure is necessary for prosecution, the identity of the employee may be disclosed but the employee shall be informed prior to the disclosure.
§
Subd. 3.False disclosures.
This section does not permit an employee to make statements or disclosures knowing that they are false or that they are in reckless disregard of the truth.
§
Subd. 4.Collective bargaining rights.
This section does not diminish or impair the rights of a person under any collective bargaining agreement.
§
Subd. 5.Confidential information.
This section does not permit disclosures that would violate federal or state law or diminish or impair the rights of any person to the continued protection of confidentiality of communications provided by common law.
Notes of Decisions
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. (2002)
minn · cites it 83×
“After appellants were fired, they alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (1996), based on their questioning whether another employee was entitled to vacation *271 pay under the wage and hour laws.”
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. (2010)
minn · cites it 42×
“After Kidwell was terminated from his position as in-house general counsel for Sybaritic, he commenced an action, alleging a violation of the whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932 (2008). Sybaritic counterclaimed, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.”
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC (2009)
minn · cites it 33×
“Respondent Wayne Kratzer brought this action against his former employer, Welsh Companies, LLC (Welsh), alleging that Welsh terminated his employment in violation of Minnesota's whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (2008). [1] The district court granted…”
Friedlander v. Edwards Lifesciences, LLC (2017)
minn · cites it 20×
“In addressing this dispute, the United States District Court stated that it was “not aware of any controlling precedent that decides the question of whether the 2013 amendments to the [Act] eliminated the expose-an-illegality requirement.”
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. (2008)
minnctapp · cites it 34×
“The act provides that "[a]n employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee" because the employee "in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to…”
Abraham v. County of Hennepin (2002)
minn · cites it 14×
“In separate but consolidated actions appellants David Abraham and Scott Len-nander brought claims seeking only money damages against their former employer, respondent Hennepin County, for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Whistle-blower Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd.…”
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. (2000)
minn · cites it 20×
“, for retaliatory discharge [1] in violation of Minnesota's whistle-blower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (1998). [2] The matter proceeded to trial and the jury found in favor of Obst.”
Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (2007)
minnctapp · cites it 30×
“On appeal from summary judgment dismissing his claims for breach of an employment contract and unlawful termination under Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (2004), appellant argues that (1) the district court erred by concluding that he did not make a “report” within the meaning…”
GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota (2007)
minnctapp · cites it 12×
“” Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (2006). Additionally, an employer is prohibited from discharging an employee because “(c) 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…”
Coursolle v. EMC Insurance Group, Inc. (2011)
minnctapp · cites it 16×
“Coursolle first argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to EMC on his claim that EMC violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.932 (2010). More specifically, Coursolle argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether he…”
Cokley v. City of Otsego (2001)
minnctapp · cites it 8×
“OPINION STONEBURNER, Judge This is an action by a former employee of the City of Otsego for damages under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (2000). After a jury verdict in favor of the employee, the City appeals from denial of its motions for JNOV and a new…”
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(1) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(a) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(c) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(l)(a) — 1 case
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(l)(c) — 4 cases
— Minn. Stat. § 181.932(l)(e) — 1 case
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.