Cited by

at 376; see also McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, (applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to the whistleblower statute).

“[E]ven if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision.” McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., fsb, (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); see also McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, (explaining that “even if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision” (quotation omitted)).

See McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, (“As each manager formed an opinion of McGrath’s behavior from personal experience, the managers did not need further investigation to verify the accuracy of their statements about McGrath.” (emphasis 10 added)), rev’d on other grounds, Hunt, d at 92 (“Finally, given Kegler’s years of work at the legislature, his opinion of Hunt’s performance was based upon reasonable grounds.” (emphasis added)).

must be used in analyzing a retaliatory discharge claim.”); McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB , d 365, 366 (Minn. 1993) (clarifying that in a whistleblower case applying McDonnell Douglas, an employer may still be liable even if it provides a legitimate reason for terminating an employee “if an illegitimate reason ‘more likely than not’ motivated the discharge decision” (quoting Anderson v. Hunter, Keith, Ma

Primarily, Peterson relies on McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, aff’d as modified, to support his argument that the district court erred by not giving a pretext instruction.

In Minnesota, even if an employer supplies a legitimate reason for a discharge, “a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason ‘more likely than not’ motivated the discharge decision.” McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, (citations omitted).

McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB , (quoting Anderson, d at 627).

See McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., fsb, (“[E]ven if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may 6 nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision.” (quotation omitted)).

“[E]ven if an employer has a legitimate reason for the discharge, a plaintiff may nevertheless prevail if an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision.” McGrath v. TCF Sav., FSB, (quotation omitted).

7 Bank Sav., FSB, (quoting Anderson, d at 627).

McGrath v. 7 TCF Bank Sav., FSB, review granted in part, decision modified on other grounds

See, (granting review “for the sole purpose of 6 clarifying the decision of the court of appeals”); (granting further review for limited purpose of examining portion of this court’s decision reg

“Whether a statement can be proven false or interpreted as stating facts is a question of law.” McGrath v. TCF Bank Sau, FSB, aff 'd as modified

McGrath v. TCF Bank Savs., FSB, modified on other grounds

See McGrath v. TCF Bank Sav., FSB, (holding that party who did not prevail not entitled to recover attorney fees and costs), aff'd as modified

-07 (Minn.App.1993), aff'd as modified

Crown CoCo’s proffered reasons “were a pretext for terminating [her] * * * because she reported a violation of the [law] * * Crown CoCo also contends the trial court gave the wrong standard of proof by requiring Cox to show “an illegitimate reason more likely than not motivated the discharge decision.” This language comports with the Minnesota Supreme Court’s

See McGrath v. TCF Bank Savings, fsb, (when employer has legitimate reason for conduct, plaintiff may still prevail if the employer’s illegitimate reason “more likely than not” led to the conduct; question would be for jury to consider).