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)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- You sometimes can boost benefits during union election
- Denied benefits, former detective suspects foul play
- Know the difference between whistle-blowing and an employee looking for an excuse to sue
- Fed contractors face new disability staffing quotas