September 18, 2020

Volume X, Number 262

September 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 16, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Minnesota Statutory Whistleblower Claims Subject to Six-Year Limitations Period, Court Rules

Effectively tripling the amount of time in which aggrieved employees may sue their employers in statutory whistleblower suits, the Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that claims under Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act (Minnesota Statute section 181.932) are not subject to the two-year statute of limitations in Minnesota Statute section 541.07(1), but instead are subject to the six-year statute of limitations under Minnesota Statute section 541.05, subd. 1(2), reversing a long-held position. Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools, No. A13-1072 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2014). Employers and employees alike have understood for almost 20 years that all whistleblower claims must be brought by an employee within two years of the alleged adverse action (which often is some other form of discipline, including employment termination). Larson v. New Richland Center, 538 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).

Relying on a 2013 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, the intermediate appellate court in Ford held that the time for commencing suit for Yvette Ford’s whistleblower claim based on the Whistleblower Act was six years, because a liability “based on a statute” implicates the six-year statute of limitations. (Ford’s claim was therefore timely.)

The effect on employers will be substantial if the Minnesota Supreme Court leaves the Court of Appeals’ decision intact. Apart from having to wait a much longer time to gain assurance that they will not be sued, employers terminating an employee or engaging in some other adverse personnel action must plan to keep employment records regarding the action for at least six years. Employers also may have to consider taking statements from witnesses to alleged events regarding an adverse action, for claims may be brought long after many of them (including the participants in the action) have left the business. Finally, to avoid a lengthy period of uncertainly, employers may be more willing to consider entering into severance agreements and releases with terminated employees to foreclose the prospect of claims, being brought nearly six years later. 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 351


About this Author

Gina K. Janeiro, Employment Labor Attorney, Jackson Lewis Law firm
Office Managing Principal

Gina K. Janeiro is Office Managing Principal of the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is certified as a Labor and Employment Law Specialist through the Minnesota State Bar Association.

Ms. Janeiro practices in all aspects of employment law and advises and represents clients in the areas of discrimination and harassment, disability management, employment contracts, wage and hour compliance, commission claims, noncompetition litigation, drug testing law, defamation, whistleblower and in closely-held corporation and partnership disputes. Ms...

Kurt J. Erickson, Jackson Lewis, class action litigation attorney, discrimination charges lawyer

Kurt J. Erickson is a Principal in the Minneapolis, Minnesota, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has represented both public and private employers in state courts, federal courts, and in administrative proceedings before state administrative tribunals.

Mr. Erickson's experience also includes litigating class action cases brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as negotiating resolutions of discrimination charges, including class action discrimination charges, prosecuted by the EEOC.

He joined Jackson Lewis after practicing law as an assistant attorney general in the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, as an in-house corporate counsel providing employment advice and litigation management, and as the head of the employment section for a medium-sized law firm in Minneapolis.