Harnan v. University of St. Thomas, 776 F. Supp. 2d 938

Background

Harnan began working for St. Thomas in August 2007 as a program coordinator in the Center for Catholic Studies, supervised by Dr. Don Briel.
In June 2008 Briel's initial performance assessment was generally positive with some areas to improve, but by 2009 his demeanor toward Harnan worsened after her hysterectomy.
Harnan took medical leave in summer 2008 for a hysterectomy and attempted to keep it private from Briel due to concerns about his views on birth control.
Starting January 2009, Briel issued a verbal then May 2009 written warning; Harnan participated in biweekly meetings and received budget process training.
Briel proposed off-the-clock work for performance, which Harnan refused and reported; HR personnel did not investigate or take action.
In June–August 2009, St. Thomas prepared termination warnings; Harnan's doctor recommended leave in August 2009; she was approved for FMLA leave but required a second opinion.
Dr. Bushara concluded Harnan could work; St. Thomas did not pursue a third opinion, leaving unresolved whether she had a serious health condition; Harnan was terminated after returning from a doctor visit.
Harnan filed suit in February 2010; St. Thomas removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
MHRA gender discrimination	Harnan alleges discrimination based on sex per MHRA § 363A.08.	St. Thomas argues no direct evidence or prima facie showing of sex-based discrimination.	No direct evidence or prima facie showing; discrimination claim fails.
MHRA reprisal	Harnan claims she opposed discrimination and faced retaliation under MHRA § 363A.15.	St. Thomas contends no reasonable, good-faith belief of discrimination and lack of causal link.	Reprisal claim fails; no reasonable belief shown.
FMLA entitlement, interference, and retaliation	Harnan contends she had a serious health condition and was denied FMLA benefits, and she was retaliated against for exercising FMLA rights.	St. Thomas argues no serious health condition and lacks entitlement; actions were not tied to FMLA rights.	Genuine issues of material fact exist on entitlement; interference and retaliation survive to extent FMLA rights contested.
Minnesota whistleblower claim	Harnan reports violations by others and asserts retaliation for whistleblowing under Minn. Stat. § 181.932.	St. Thomas argues reports were nonspecific or not legally cognizable whistleblowing and timing inadequate.	Whistleblower claim fails as a matter of law.
Summary judgment standard as applied to MHRA and FMLA claims	Genuine disputes of material fact exist on key issues, requiring denial of summary judgment for at least some claims.	No genuine issues where evidence does not support the claims.	Summary judgment granted in part and denied in part; several MHRA and whistleblower claims resolved in favor of St. Thomas.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes the burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Hervey v. County of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2008) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to MHRA claims)
Devin v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., 491 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2007) (prima facie elements for MHRA discrimination)
Riley v. Lance, Inc., 518 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2008) (burden-shifting for discrimination after prima facie case)
Gallagher v. Magner, 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2010) (direct evidence can defeat McDonnell Douglas framework)
Branham v. Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc., 619 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizes conflict in medical proof on serious health condition for FMLA)
Bahr v. Capella University, 788 N.W.2d 76 (Minn. 2010) (good-faith belief in violation; actual violation not required in some MHRA contexts)
Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 280 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2002) (causal inference standard for retaliation)
Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990) (retaliation causation standard in discrimination cases)
Skare v. Extendicare Health Servs., Inc., 515 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008) (defining 'report' under whistleblower statute)
Gee v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities, 700 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (interpretation of whistleblower reporting)
Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Med. Ctr., Inc., 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn. 1996) (public-interest whistleblowing analysis)
Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (nonspecific references not actionable reports)
Rothmeier v. Inv. Advisers, Inc., 556 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (temporal proximity in whistleblower analysis)
Freeman v. Ace Tel. Ass'n, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Minn. 2005) (retaliation causation considerations in disability context)
Hite v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 446 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 2006) (very close temporal proximity can support retaliation inference)