2014 WL 107151
D. Minn.2014Background
- Pedersen, an RN formerly employed by Bio-Medical Applications of Minnesota (BMA), reported that blood samples drawn April 11 had been left out overnight and improperly packaged before being shipped to Spectra Laboratories.
- Clinic staff discovered and repackaged the April 11 specimens on April 12; Spectra’s April 14 test results showed no compromised samples and only one abnormal result from April 12.
- Pedersen repeatedly reported the April 11 handling to BMA managers, a contract nephrologist, and the company’s EAR line between April 17–19; BMA managers had already investigated and communicated that the samples were not compromised.
- After unrelated disciplinary allegations and a medical leave, Pedersen did not accept BMA’s offer to return under revised terms; BMA later terminated her for job abandonment.
- Pedersen sued under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), alleging retaliation for reporting mishandling and a purported “cover up.” BMA moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pedersen engaged in a “report” protected by the MWA | Pedersen contends her complaints about mishandled samples and a cover-up were reports of misconduct to her employer and others | BMA argues it already knew of the incident, had investigated, and Pedersen’s later complaints merely repeated known information (no whistle to blow) | Court: No — her complaints were not protected reports because BMA was already aware and had addressed the incident before she raised it |
| Whether the complaints alleged a violation of law or ethical standards (protected activity) | Pedersen points to Nurse Practice Act, Spectra procedures, CMS guidance, and federal regulations to show legal/ethical violations | BMA argues cited statutes/regulations do not govern sample handling here, internal policy violations are insufficient, and there was no evidence samples were compromised | Court: No — Pedersen failed to show any statutory or ethical violation implicated by the April 11 handling; internal policy or speculative harm is insufficient |
| Whether the “cover-up” allegation constituted protected reporting | Pedersen asserts Kienzle tried to conceal the incident and thus her reporting exposed wrongdoing | BMA shows Kienzle instructed staff to contact the lab and did investigate; by the time Pedersen complained she knew samples were not compromised | Court: No — no evidence of a cover-up or a report exposing illegality; reporting a non-existent problem is not protected |
| Whether factual issues preclude summary judgment | Pedersen argues credibility and motive issues raise jury questions | BMA contends protected-activity failure is dispositive; other defenses (pretext) also apply | Court: Summary judgment granted for BMA because absence of protected activity is dispositive; no need to reach pretext arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 2000) (MWA protects reports that expose illegality; not mere complaints)
- Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 855 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (plaintiff must prove engagement in statutorily protected conduct)
- Kratzer v. Welsh Cos., 771 N.W.2d 14 (Minn. 2009) (courts should not construe MWA too broadly; protects legal/ethical violations, not subjective complaints)
- Fjelsta v. Zogg Dermatology, PLC, 488 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2007) (court may decide as a matter of law that conduct is not a protected report)
- Hitchcock v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 442 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2006) (MWA protects exposing illegality; employer’s prior knowledge can negate a whistleblower claim)
- Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (reporting conduct already known to employer is not protected)