Issue

Should Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act be limited to situations in which public policy has been violated? Should Minnesota expand whistleblower protection to good-faith private employee statements, regardless of the veracity of the statements?

Policy

The Legislature should require that Whistleblower Act claims involve a violation of public policy. Throughout the years, Minnesota courts have decided cases on both sides of the issue; however, one of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s latest rulings, Marguerite Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women’s Center, Inc., states that a plaintiff does not have to establish that the reported violation of law implicates public policy. Since this decision will guide future court decisions, the Legislature should amend the Whistleblower Act and make it clear that the act requires reported violations of law to violate the public welfare.

Moreover, the Minnesota Chamber opposes further expansion of Whistleblower protection to good-faith private employee statements to the public (regarding issues like public safety, health or the environment) that the employee believes to be true, regardless of the veracity of the statements. In 2007, legislation was introduced that protected such statements by public and private-sector employees; the bill ultimately was narrowed to exclude its application to the private sector. The Chamber believes that existing whistleblower laws sufficiently protect truthful employee statements.

Business Impact

If the Whistleblower Act remains unchanged, courts will continue to rule that plaintiffs can bring claims under the act even if the alleged violation of law does not concern public policy. That means that every time employees are terminated, employers could potentially face a whistleblower claim. Further, extension of whistleblower protection in the private sector to good-faith employee statements, regardless of their truth, would adversely affect Minnesota’s business climate. Proprietary information could be exposed, and unwarranted negative publicity could result, if such statements were protected.