Douglas Sellner v. MAT Holdings, Inc.
859 F.3d 610
8th Cir.2017Background
- Douglas J. Sellner was hired by MAT in June 2011 as a lab-quality technician responsible for testing and reporting product performance (notably for the Honbase pump).
- In March 2012 Sellner alleges General Manager Butch Stark pressured him to "get creative" and falsify lab documentation to avoid Sears complaining about the Honbase pump; Stark allegedly warned Sellner he would be fired if he refused.
- Sellner reported the alleged instruction to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (MNOSHA) on March 30; coworkers and supervisors learned of the report within days.
- In early April MAT posted a lead position, recommended Sellner for promotion and a pay increase, but after an anonymous complaint and an HR investigation in late April, MAT terminated Sellner for "unacceptable conduct." Sellner did not receive the promotion or pay increase.
- Sellner sued under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), Minn. Stat. § 181.932, alleging termination in retaliation for his good-faith report; the district court granted summary judgment for MAT.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude Stark’s March 29 comments were direct evidence linking protected activity to the firing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sellner engaged in MWA-protected conduct | Sellner reported an alleged state-law violation (falsifying test data) in good faith to MNOSHA | MAT argued the report was not causally connected to termination or not protected | Court: Reporting suspected falsification is protected conduct under the MWA |
| Whether termination was an adverse employment action | Sellner: termination (and loss of promotion/pay) is adverse | MAT: firing was for legitimate "unacceptable conduct" reasons | Court: Termination is an adverse action under precedent |
| Whether there is a causal link (direct evidence) between protected conduct and firing | Sellner: Stark’s comment that Sellner would be "on the street" if he didn’t "get creative" directly links refusal/report to discharge | MAT: The comment was too remote; intervening events and later supportive acts by Stark break the link | Court: Stark’s comment, close in time to the report, is direct evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial |
| Whether intervening events or favorable post-comments defeat causation | MAT: subsequent support and other events negate a specific causal link | Sellner: favorable reviews do not dispel retaliatory motive and may support inference that stated reasons are pretextual | Court: Intervening events did not negate the inference; favorable treatment can support pretext inference and is a factual question for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Fjelsta v. Zogg Dermatology, 488 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2007) (defines direct-evidence standard for protected-conduct causation)
- Wood v. SatCom Mktg., LLC, 705 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2013) (direct evidence standard and causation framework)
- Young-Losee v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2011) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence distinction explained)
- Chavez-Lavagnino v. Motivation Educ. Training, Inc., 767 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2014) (timing—six weeks—can support retaliation inference at summary judgment)
- Pedersen v. Bio-Medical Applications, 775 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2015) (intervening remedial actions can defeat causal inference where shown)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (multi-month gaps can be insufficient alone to show causation)
- Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040 (8th Cir. 2005) (employer motive and mixed-motive issues are factual questions for trial)