Whistleblower Cases

Trial court did not err denying plea in bar to appellant's suit for wrongful termination in violation of the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act; recognition by appellee in March 2021 she was not scheduled to work April 2021 was not sufficient to constitute a prohibited retaliatory action by appellant; matter remanded for further proceedings

School psychologists not \employed primarily as a classroom teacher\ are not \teachers\ as defined in N.D.C.C. § 15.1-16-01(5). Hilton v. North Dakota Edu. Ass'n, 2002 ND 209, 655 N.W.2d 60, is overruled to the extent it holds a licensed school district employee who is not an administrator is a teacher irrespective of the employee's assigned teaching duties. A special education teacher is not a \teacher\ within N.D.C.C. ch. 15.1-16 when the teacher is not a school employee. This Court does not hold whether a school district may provide teaching services through independent contractors.

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.