Wood v. SatCom Marketing, LLC, et al, No. 12-1712 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff sued her former employer, SatCom, alleging violations of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), Minn. Stat. 181.932; Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. 363A.01-.43; common law of wrongful termination, and Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Although plaintiff succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of retaliation where three of her reports constituted a protected activity, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SatCom because SatCom had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for terminating plaintiff. Because the district court's McDonnell-Douglas analysis was sufficiently thorough to encompass plaintiff's claims under the Reporting Clause and Opposition Clause of the MWA, plaintiff was not entitled to reversal on this basis. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of SatCom.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. District court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act based on its finding that none of her actions were protected activities because at least three of her reports were protected activities as they made in good faith to expose suspected illegalities; however, defendant was still entitled to summary judgment on the claims as defendant articulated legitimate, non- retaliatory grounds for plaintiff's discharge, and plaintiff failed to show the grounds were pretextual.
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.