Abraham v. County of Hennepin
Summary
Held that retaliatory discharge claims under both the Whistleblower Act and MOSHA may be pursued concurrently in one action, and that whistleblower claims seeking only money damages entitle the claimant to a jury trial under the Minnesota Constitution.
Why This Case Matters
Abraham v. County of Hennepin is an important Minnesota decision interpreting the Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932, and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act (MOSHA), Minn. Stat. § 182.654. The case established that retaliatory discharge claims under both statutes may be pursued concurrently in a single action, and that employees bringing whistleblower claims for damages have a constitutional right to a jury trial under the Minnesota Constitution.
The Facts
David Abraham and Scott Lennander were offset equipment operators in Hennepin County’s print shop. In February 1995, they complained to supervisors that fumes in the workplace were making them ill. On March 2, 1995, Abraham filed a written complaint with the Safety and Health Division, which triggered a workplace inspection. In April 1995, both employees were discharged. They brought suit alleging retaliatory discharge under both the Whistleblower Act and the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act (MOSHA).
The district court granted summary judgment for the county, and the court of appeals affirmed in part, holding that the MOSHA claim preempted the Whistleblower Act claim and that there was no right to a jury trial.
What the Court Decided
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for jury trial. First, the court held that retaliatory discharge claims under the Whistleblower Act and MOSHA are not irreconcilable and may be pursued concurrently in one action. Neither statute contains an exclusive remedy provision, and the Whistleblower Act expressly states its remedies are “in addition to any remedies otherwise provided by law.” The court of appeals had erred in holding that MOSHA preempted the Whistleblower Act claim.
Second, the court held that a whistleblower claim seeking only money damages is a tort action at law, and as such, it carries a constitutional right to a jury trial under Article I, Section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution. This was a significant procedural victory for whistleblower plaintiffs, ensuring that their claims would be decided by juries rather than judges alone.
What This Means for You
- You may have claims under multiple statutes: If you are retaliated against for reporting workplace safety concerns, you may be able to pursue claims under both the Whistleblower Act (Minn. Stat. § 181.932) and MOSHA (Minn. Stat. § 182.654) in the same action. These remedies are cumulative, not exclusive.
- Retaliation after reporting is unlawful: If your employer takes adverse action against you—such as demotion, termination, or reduced hours—after you report a potential violation of law in good faith, you may have a claim under Minn. Stat. § 181.932.
- You have the right to a jury trial: If you bring a whistleblower claim seeking damages, you are entitled to have a jury hear your case. This can be a meaningful advantage, as juries often respond strongly to evidence of employer retaliation.
- Document your reports: Put your concerns in writing when possible, and keep copies. Written records of what you reported, when you reported it, and to whom are critical evidence if you later need to prove retaliation.