Sellner v. MAT Holdings, Inc., No. 15-2937 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, MAT, alleging retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. 181.932. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of MAT, holding that a supervisor's comment -- viewed most favorably to plaintiff -- was sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action. In this case, the supervisor stated that plaintiff would be "on the street" if he did not falsify testing data regarding a particular product. The court explained that the comment provided a specific link between plaintiff's protected conduct and his termination.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Riley, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Supervisor's comment that plaintiff would be "on the street" if he did not "get creative with [his]documentation" concerning a potentially defective product provided a specific link between plaintiff's protected conduct and his termination; the comment was sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action, and the district court erred in granting the employer summary judgment on plaintiff's Whistleblower Act claim.
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.