Lissick v. Andersen Corp., No. 19-3783 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, who was employed with Andersen from 2000-2018, was terminated for violating lock-out, tag-out (LOTO) safety procedures. After plaintiff filed suit against Andersen, he voluntarily dismissed four of his eight claims and the district court granted summary judgment on the remaining four claims.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that Andersen did not violate the Minnesota Whistleblower Act by terminating his employment in retaliation for his previous sexual harassment and falsified documentation complaint. The court explained that plaintiff failed to show causation between the protected activity and his discharge, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate. The court also concluded that plaintiff was unable to establish the causal link necessary for a prima facia case of retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim under the Family Medical Leave Act also failed for lack of causation.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's claim defendant violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act by terminating him in retaliation for making a sexual harassment claim as well as for making a claim that two other employees had filed fraudulent documents as he was unable to show a causal connection between the protected activity and his discharge; claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act failed for lack of causation; claim of FMLA retaliation also failed for lack of causation.
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.