Halunen & Associates

On September 23, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released an unpublished opinion favorable to employees fired because of whistleblowing.  Chuck Hayes was fired from his job as a mechanic, in part, after complaining that customers were sold unnecessary parts and overcharged for parts and labor.  Hayes argued with offending co-worker in front of his boss on several occasions and made at least two complaints directly to his boss.  Hayes argued that he was fired in violation of Minnesota’s whistleblower law which states that “[a]n employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee” who “in good faith reports a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official.”  Minn. Stat. 181.932, subd. 1(a) (2004).

The district court held that Hayes did not make a “report” such as to qualify for protection under the statute because he did not convey his complaint in an official or formal manner.   The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Minnesota case law does not require a formal report, but rather that a report can be defined broadly as “[t]o make or present an often . . . regular account of.”

The district court also held that Hayes did not make the report in good faith because he failed to show that that he intended to blow the whistle when he made the report.  The Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that a jury could conclude that Hayes was objecting to expose the problem by informing his employer that he knew of his coworker’s illegal activities and wanted them to stop.

Additionally, the district court held that Hayes could not have blown the whistle because his employer was already aware of the problem.  Again the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “an employer does not automatically escape liability under the whistleblower statute simply because the employer knew of the violation or suspected violation before the employee reports it.”