Minnesota employees are protected from retaliation for reporting possible illegal activities to their employers.
Recent case: Charles Hayes worked for an auto repair shop for 16 years until the company laid him off. Hayes sued, alleging the company fired him because he had complained that a co-worker was telling customers they had to replace perfectly good parts. Hayes said this was whistle-blowing under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. The trial court dismissed the case, and he appealed.
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota ordered a trial. It said Hayes’ frequent complaints about illegal sales constituted whistle-blowing attempts. The fact that he was terminated when a junior employee—the one who allegedly made the fraudulent sales—kept his job could have been retaliation. (Hayes v. Dapper, et al., No. A07-1878, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 2008)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/6909/repeated-warnings-of-fraud-may-be-protected-whistle-blowing "
- Medical certification of need for accommodation is unclear?
- Can we make deaf employee--and his boss--learn and communicate with sign language?
- How to Respond to an EEOC Complaint: 10 Steps to Success
- NLRB continues with controversial moves and appointments
- Indianapolis company accused of breaking Muslim sharia law