DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cokley v. City of Otsego, 623 N.W.2d 625.

26 citing documents.

  • Amy Sweasy Tamburino, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    We are persuaded based on our review of the record that there is sufficient admissible evidence, consistent with the district court’s evidentiary rulings, to create a genuine issue 28 On the third, and final, prong of the prima facie case, a plaintiff may “demonstrate a causal connection by circumstantial evidence that justifies an inference of retaliatory motive.” rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Vicki Metcalf, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Where, as here, there is no direct evidence of retali ation, we apply the three-part McDonnell Douglas analysis.4 Cokley v. City of Otsego , (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U. S. 792, 802 -03, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973)), rev. denied (Minn. May 15, 2001) .
  • Debra Sakrison, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (explaining that a “report” under the MWA requires that the employee “blow the whistle” by “notifying the employer of a violation of law that is clearly mandated public policy”), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Charity Slaughter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Hubbard v. United Press Int’l, Inc. , -45 (Minn. 1983); (stating that close proximity between an employee engaging in protected conduct and a termination decision supports an i nference of reprisal), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Tiffany Hall, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Cokley v. City of Otsego , 632 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • A Xiong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Bradley Wingate, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Moore v. City of New Brighton 932 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    of Minn. , , 329 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying McDonnell Douglas test in review of summary-judgment decision in retaliatory-discharge claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act), review denied (Minn. July 17, 2007); cf. Cokley v. City of Otsego , , 630 (Minn. App. 2001) (applying McDonnell Douglas test to employer's posttrial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in retaliatory-discharge trial under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Mark Osland, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Bradley Yde, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    We are “mindful that retaliatory motive is difficult to prove by direct evidence and that an employee may demonstrate a causal connection by circumst antial evidence that justifies an inference of retaliatory motive.” Cokley v. City of Otsego , review denied (Minn. May 15, 2011).
  • State of Minnesota v. Earl Alfonso Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Earl Alfonso Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “Inferences must be reasonably supported by the available evidence; sheer speculation is not enough.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Mark Schaefer v. Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    1(1) (2014); d 625, 630 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Nancy Salscheider v. Allina Health System d/b/a Allina Hospitals & Clinics Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Because “retaliatory motive is difficult to prove by direct evidence,” “an employee may demonstrate a causal connection by circumstantial evidence that justifies an inference of retaliatory motive.” review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 749 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • GRUNDTNER v. University of Minnesota 730 N.W.2d 323 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Borgersen v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. 729 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    1(a) “must ‘blow the whistle’ by notifying the employer of a violation of law that is a clearly mandated public policy.” review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Lee v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 672 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Lee v. Regents of the University of Minnesota 672 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    In order to present a prima facie case for whistle-blowing protection, there must be “(1) statutorily-protected conduct by the employee; (2) adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.” (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).
  • Guercio v. Production Automation Corp. 664 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Guercio v. Production Automation Corp. 664 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. May 15, 2001).