Protecting Minnesota's Whistleblowers: Ending the Application of McDonnell Douglas to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act

Whistleblowers are critical to society, speaking out to protect the public from corporate and government wrongdoing. Employers often retaliate against employees who speak out, attempting to deter employees from blowing the whistle. Whistleblower protection statutes seek to protect those who suffer from retaliation, providing a judicial remedy for whistleblowers. The Minnesota Whistleblower Act affords these protections in Minnesota and allows whistleblowers to bring claims against their employers for retaliation. In Minnesota, whistleblowers are held to a higher, more challenging standard than whistleblowers in other states. Minnesota state courts apply a federal standard at summary judgment, creating an undue barrier for plaintiffs bringing retaliation claims. This federal standard, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, often prevents plaintiffs with legitimate retaliation claims from ever presenting their case to a jury. Minnesota must end the application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims. The continued application of this federal standard obstructs the proper summary judgment standard and limits a whistleblower’s ability to reach a settlement or receive a jury award. Other scholars and jurists have repeatedly criticized McDonnell Douglas in other contexts. This Note specifically addresses the inappropriate application of the framework to Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims. Further, this Note analyzes how different states have dealt with McDonnell Douglas in the whistleblower context and discusses how the Minnesota Supreme Court has reviewed the issue. Ultimately, this Note concludes that to protect whistleblowers, Minnesota must end the application of McDonnell Douglas to Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims.