The Minnesota Supreme Courtroom just lately reaffirmed the usage of the acquainted McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to investigate claims of retaliation underneath Minnesota regulation, regardless of the ask by the plaintiff-appellant and amici to abolish utilizing that framework.  The courtroom additionally affirmed the requirement that workers present proof of an employer’s intent to unlawfully retaliate towards workers earlier than permitting whistleblower claims to go to trial.  (Hanson v. State of Minnesota, No. A20-0747, Apr. 6, 2022). 

Factual Background

The plaintiff, an official of the Minnesota Division of Pure Assets (DNR), had been staying at a on line casino lodge on the Bois Forte Indian Reservation.  As soon as on the lodge, she claims to have heard a child “incessantly crying,” apparently unattended, and observed what she believed was a prostitution ring working out of the room subsequent to hers.  Whereas investigating the scenario, the plaintiff peered out of her room into the hallway whereas unclothed.  Later, with clothes on, she spoke to 2 males who she described as showing to her to be both johns or pimps close to the identical room. 

The plaintiff reported these incidents to lodge administration.  Resort safety and the lodge supervisor investigated the neighboring room and located that every little thing was safe and the kid was secure.  The lodge supervisor additionally up to date the plaintiff concerning these findings.  However, the plaintiff referred to as 911, recognized herself as a “state official,” requested for a “secure escort” from the lodge, and additional acknowledged that she was “barricaded” in her room and had “stumbled upon” a prostitution ring.  Because of this name, a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Officer and a police officer arrived on the lodge.  The BIA officer and the police officer knocked on the neighboring door and located one lady and 4 youngsters in a room that was clear and orderly.  The girl defined that the youngest little one was teething and crying rather a lot.  The officers reported these info to the plaintiff and knowledgeable her that the lodge needed her to go away. 

The plaintiff then requested the BIA officer if it might be attainable for her to ask a DNR officer to accompany her from the lodge.  Finally, a DNR conservation officer and a St. Louis County sheriff responded, escorting her out of the lodge. 

The following day, the BIA officer reported to DNR that the plaintiff was harassing and abusive towards lodge workers and regulation enforcement.  DNR later investigated the incident and DNR’s Human Assets (HR) Director terminated the plaintiff’s employment.  The HR Director later testified that the plaintiff was terminated as a result of she was nude in a public house, was requested to go away the lodge due to the best way she was conducting herself, questioned the BIA’s jurisdiction to reply to the lodge, and misused her state place.  He additional testified that he had no downside with the worker reporting the child crying or her suspicions in regards to the prostitution ring.  The plaintiff then filed swimsuit.

Supreme Courtroom Finds No Proof of Retaliation and Upholds Grant of Abstract Judgment

The plaintiff filed swimsuit underneath the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, claiming that the DNR fired her as a result of her protected experiences of illegal conduct – particularly her experiences of potential prostitution.  After the district courtroom granted abstract judgment in favor of the DNR, the matter ultimately was appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Courtroom.  The supreme courtroom held that the grant of abstract judgment was correct as a result of there was no proof that the DNR’s asserted non-retaliatory causes for the termination of the plaintiff’s employment had been a pretext for a retaliatory motive.

The case is especially noteworthy as a result of, in reaching its holding, the courtroom rejected the trouble by the plaintiff and her amici to make use of this case as a car to jettison the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework utilized in analyzing retaliation claims based mostly on oblique or circumstantial proof.  The courtroom additionally reiterated that workers should present in these circumstances that an employer’s cause for termination was a pretext for an unlawful intent.

In making use of the McDonnell Douglas framework to the info of this case, the courtroom held that though the plaintiff established a prima facie retaliation declare, she couldn’t present pretext.  The courtroom famous that the explanation for termination given by the HR Director was not proven to be false. Nor was her termination motivated by an intent to retaliate towards her for having raised issues of attainable prostitution on the lodge.  As an alternative, the supreme courtroom emphasised that superseding, intervening misconduct by the plaintiff operated to sever any attainable causal hyperlink that may in any other case be implied by the temporal proximity of the plaintiff’s protected report and her termination of employment.  The plaintiff’s nudity in a public house, her mistreatment of lodge workers and authorities officers, and her misuse of her place as a public official had been finally discovered to have established reliable, non-retaliatory, and non-pretextual causes for her termination.  The courtroom thus affirmed the grant of abstract judgment in favor of the DNR. 

Key Takeaways for Minnesota Employers

The Hanson holding supplies steerage and reminders for employers on a number of factors:

• The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework will proceed to use to claims underneath the Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims on the abstract judgment stage.
• An worker shouldn’t be insulated from self-discipline for their very own misconduct within the office, just because they have interaction in statutorily-protected conduct.
• Employers ought to proceed to fastidiously assess disciplinary and discharge selections for workers who could have made a criticism of alleged protected exercise to make sure a reliable, nonretaliatory cause exists for any hostile motion.