holding that an “employee cannot be said to have ‘blown the whistle’” under Minnesota’s whistleblower statute “when the employee’s report is made because it is the employee’s job to investigate and report wrongdoing”
How later courts described this case
- holding that an “employee cannot be said to have ‘blown the whistle’” under Minnesota’s whistleblower statute “when the employee’s report is made because it is the employee’s job to investigate and report wrongdoing”
- stating that when a company’s in-house counsel advises the company on compliance issues, “the lawyer is not sending a report for the purpose of exposing an illegality and the lawyer is not blowing the whistle”
- construing Minnesota Whistleblower Act to afford no protection to email report sent as part of employee’s normal job duties as an in-house counsel
- relying on federal cases construing the Whistleblower Protection Act when interpreting retaliation claim under MWA
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.