Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-2409 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe district court granted Federated's motion for summary judgment after determining that plaintiff's disclosures did not qualify as protected reports under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued Friedlander v. Edwards Lifescis., LLC, 900 N.W.2d 162, 166 (Minn. 2017), which explained that the 2013 amendment to the Minnesota Whistleblower Act eliminated the judicially created requirement that a putative whistleblower act with the purpose of exposing an illegality. In light of Friedlander, the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration of summary judgment.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Minnesota Whistleblower Act. The order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in Friedlander v. Edwards Lifescis., LLC, 900 N.W. 162 (Minn. 2017).
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.