Mervine v. Plant Engineering Services, No. 16-2055 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer on plaintiff's claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). The court held that there was no genuine issue for trial because no rational trier of fact could conclude on this record that plaintiff's protected activity was causally connected to his termination. Therefore, the district court thus did not err in concluding that plaintiff failed to satisfy his initial burden of establishing a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the MWA. Even assuming that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation, he has not shown that Plant Engineering's stated reason for terminating his employment—unsatisfactory job performance—was pretext for retaliation.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Because no rational trier of fact could conclude on this record that plaintiff's protected activity was causally connected to his termination, there was no genuine issue for trial, and the district court did not err in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment; assuming plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation, he failed to show that the employer's stated reason for firing him - unsatisfactory job performance - was a pretext for retaliation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.