Scarborough v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., No. 19-1918 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging that the employer retaliated against him in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA). The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and concluded that, even assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for the adverse employment action. In this case, the employer offered several reasons for demoting and terminating plaintiff: among other things, plaintiff knew of and approved prohibited invoice practices, encouraged another person to do the same, lied about both, and engaged in unethical practices. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to show that the employers' reasons for his termination were pretextual.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Minnesota Whistleblower Act. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Scarborough v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 894 F.3d 1277 (8th Cir. 2018). Absent direct evidence that plaintiff was retaliated against for flagging a subordinate's expense reporting, the claim of retaliation under the Act would be analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; assuming plaintiff made a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer offered legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for the adverse employment action, which plaintiff failed to show were pretexts for retaliation against him for blowing the whistle on his subordinate.
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.