The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), was set in place in order to help protect employees who engage in a wide range of “whistleblowing” like reporting illegal activity, refusing to engage in illegal activity or aiding with government investigations.
The MWA helps employees by prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee through discharging, disciplining or penalizing for an act that appears to be whistleblowing. In a recent case, the Minnesota Supreme Court extended the MWA’s 4-year statute of limitations by an additional four years.
In November 2006 Yvette Ford began work for Minneapolis Public Schools, (MPS), in the English Language Learners department. According to Ford, during her time with MPS she made multiple reports about unethical and illegal activities occurring in this department.
About two years into her employment, Ford was informed that her full-time position would no longer be available at the end of the fiscal year. Ford said that the day before her last working day she made additional reports to the MPS about financial misconduct, disability discrimination and retaliation.
On June 29, 2010 Ford brought suit against MPS claiming her termination was in retaliation for the reports of all the wrongdoing she witnessed. This, if ruled in her favor, would be considered a clear violation of the MWA. Initially, the District Court dismissed her claims because of the two-year statute of limitations. Ford would have had to file the suit by April 2010 for her suit to be heard. Ford immediately appealed.
The Minnesota Supreme Court completely disagreed with the lower court on appeal and claimed the statute of limitations is actually 6 years – not two. It said that the two-year statute of limitations applies to common-law claims, but the longer statute of limitations exists for liability created by statute.
The court ultimately held that Ford’s claim only exists because the MWA created it. In this case, the six-year statute of limitations does in fact apply.
Human resource explains this case could easily stir up some confusion because of all of the different circumstances that applied. Since it is now abundantly clear that the statute of limitations can clearly extend far beyond two years, HR experts say human resource departments should consider keeping paperwork just a little longer to be on the safe side.
