Background

• Joan Nichols (then in Ohio) applied for and accepted a communications director job at Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) in late 2011, alleging she was induced by knowingly false representations about the job.
• Nichols’ OSS employment ran from January 4, 2012 to February 19, 2012; she sued the State, OSS, Secretary Ritchie, and Beth Fraser on September 19, 2012.
• Among claims, Nichols pleaded statutory tort claims under Minn. Stat. §§ 181.64 and 181.65 (false statements inducing employment) seeking damages and attorney fees.
• Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing the State is immune because §§ 181.64–.65 do not name the State nor plainly and unmistakably waive sovereign immunity under Minn. Stat. § 645.27.
• The district court denied dismissal of the statutory claims; the court of appeals reversed, holding broad statutory language alone was insufficient to waive immunity. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Nieting v. Blondell, 235 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 1975) (origin and principle of sovereign immunity in Minnesota)
• Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999) (statutory waiver of immunity must be clear and express)
• Lienhard v. State, 431 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. 1988) (§ 645.27 interpreted as rule of construction for waiver)
• Martens v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. 2000) (standard for motion to dismiss—accept complaint facts)
• State v. Loge, 608 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2000) (avoid interpretations creating surplusage; give effect to § 645.27)
• Stoecker v. Moeglein, 129 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1964) (recognizing state may be employer yet immune from certain statutory penalties absent clear waiver)
• Nelson v. McKenzie-Hague Co., 256 N.W. 96 (Minn. 1934) (general statutory words should not be construed to include government absent clear text)
• F.A.A. v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1441 (U.S. 2012) (federal principle that waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed)