Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services

Why This Case Matters

Minnesota, like most states, follows the at-will employment doctrine: either the employer or the employee can end the employment relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. A narrow exception exists when an employee is fired for refusing to participate in illegal activity (established in Phipps v. Clark Oil). Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services tested the boundaries of that exception. The Supreme Court refused to expand it, holding that an employee fired for filing for unemployment benefits does not have a common-law wrongful termination claim – even though the firing may have been unfair. This case is important because it defines how narrow the public-policy exception remains in Minnesota.

The Facts

Jane Kay Dukowitz worked as a security officer for Hannon Security Services. In late 2008, she was told her daytime position would be eliminated. When she mentioned she would need to file for unemployment benefits to supplement her income, supervisors allegedly discussed terminating her. She filed for unemployment benefits in December 2008 and was terminated in March 2009. Dukowitz sued, arguing that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her legal right to apply for unemployment benefits, and that this violated public policy.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court held that the public-policy exception to at-will employment does not extend to termination for filing for unemployment benefits. The court reasoned that the exception is narrow by design – it covers only employees who are discharged for refusing in good faith to participate in activity they reasonably believe violates the law. Applying for unemployment benefits does not fit that framework. Critically, the court noted that the legislature had already addressed this conduct: Minnesota Statutes sections 268.192 and 268.184 make it a misdemeanor for an employer to obstruct an employee’s unemployment application. But the legislature conspicuously chose not to create a civil remedy. Where the legislature has prescribed criminal consequences but declined to create a private right of action, courts should not second-guess that choice by expanding common law.

What This Means for You

• At-will employment is the default: In Minnesota, your employer can generally fire you for any reason or no reason, as long as it does not violate a specific law (such as discrimination statutes) or the narrow public-policy exception.
• The public-policy exception is narrow: The exception protects employees who refuse to participate in illegal activity. It does not create a general “unfair firing” remedy. If you were fired for a reason that feels unjust but does not fall within the exception, you may not have a common-law wrongful termination claim.
• Statutory protections may still apply: Even though the public-policy exception did not help in this case, other laws may protect you. Minnesota’s whistleblower statute (Minn. Stat. section 181.932) protects employees who report violations of law. If you believe you were fired in retaliation for protected activity, consult with an employment attorney about which specific statutes may apply to your situation.