Whistleblower Cases

Appellant challenges the district court's dismissal of his complaint with prejudice under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. Appellant's handwritten complaint alleges that respondents misrepresented the parties' work relationship by stating in an \employment contract\ that appellant was a \contractor\ who worked for an \employer\ and then later asserting that appellant was an \independent contractor.\ We conclude that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state claims for misrepresentation of employment relationship, fraudulent misrepresentation, and whistleblower retaliation. But we also conclude that the complaint fails to state claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), her claims under the Minnesota whistleblower act (MWA), and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also challenges the district court's denial of her motions to compel discovery. Because no genuine issues of material fact exist precluding the grant of summary judgment for respondents and any error related to the motions to compel is harmless, we affirm.

The plaintiff, Jordan Nissensohn, Administrator of the Estate of Michael Nissensohn, appealed from a final judgment of the Superior Court granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendants, University Medical Group (UMG), Alan Epstein, M.D., and Steven Sepe, M.D. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Superior Court erred by finding that: (1) the plaintiff did not engage in protected conduct under the Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act (RIWPA), G.L. 1956 chapter 50 of title 28 (2) Dr. Epstein and UMG's allegedly defamatory statements were substantially true or untimely (3) the plaintiff's teaching duties were voluntary (4) the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim was preempted by the Payment of Wages Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 14 of title 28 (5) the plaintiff failed to establish his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations (6) Dr. Epstein's alleged interference was not causally connected to the plaintiff's failure to set up a new practice and (7) the plaintiff did not provide sufficient nonhearsay evidence to support his conversion claim.<br><br>The Supreme Court determined that: the plaintiff did not engage in RIWPA-protected conduct because he did not report a violation of the law the plaintiff's defamation claims abated upon his death Dr. Epstein's promise to pay the plaintiff additional teaching money was not supported by consideration the plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim based upon UMG's failure to pay him for patient care was untimely under the Payment of Wages Act the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support each element of his tortious interference claims and the plaintiff waived any argument that his conversion claim was supported by nonhearsay evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. <br>