Cited by

FACTS On appeal from summary judgment, “we consider the undisputed facts along with any disputed facts as construed in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Hanson, d at 372 -373 (applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to MWA retaliation claims); Hoover, d at 548 (“A reprisal claim [under the MHRA] is analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test.”); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 317, 323-24 (Minn. App. 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

See Hanson, d at 372 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) );13 rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

-25 (Minn. App. 2019) (discussing breach-of-contract claims and stating that “contract breaches violate the common law”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

(referencing Minn. Stat. § 181.931, subd.

In a whistleblower retaliation claim, the employee first needs to present a three-element prima facie case: “(1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” (quoting Hubbard, d at 444), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

“[A] plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Moore v. City of New Brighton , (quotation omitted) (addressing the Minnesota Whistleblower Act), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.