Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc., 551 N.W.2d 483.

36 citing documents.

Sean Bruce Henry, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ctr., Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1996).
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fletcher Properties, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ctr., Inc., (concluding that the exclusivity provision in the MHRA preempted a separate claim under Minnesota’s whistleblower act based on the same alleged discriminatory practice and facts).
Damon Doss, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ctr., Inc. , 486 (Minn. 1996).
Dr. Kimberly Finch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Whitney Hinrichs-Cady, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Shannon Miller, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ctr., Inc., n.1 (Minn. 1996).
Paul Allen Bray, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
21 (“The legislature did not design the MHRA to redress intentional offensive physical contact already addressed by a tort battery action.”).
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc. 784 N.W.2d 220 Minn. 2010
Ctr., Inc., , 484 n. 1 (Minn.1996)).
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Kratzer v. Welsh Companies, LLC 771 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2009
Ctr., Inc., , 484 n. 1 (Minn.1996) (noting in dicta that the Whis-tleblower Act does not protect reports based on an employee’s subjective notions of wrongdoing, but protects only “an action by a neutral — one who is not personally and uniquely affronted by the employer’s unlawful conduct but rather one who ‘blows the whistle’ fo
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Paul Ramsey Medical Center, we held that an employee may not seek redress for the same allegedly discriminatory practices on the same facts under both the MHRA and the Whistle-blower Act, because the MHRA expressly provides that its procedure, while pending, shall be exclusive.
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc.
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Ctr., Inc., -57 (Minn.App.1995), reversed on other grounds
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
Obst v. Microtron, Inc. 614 N.W.2d 196 Minn. 2000
Ctr., Inc., , 484 n. 1 (Minn.1996).
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 607 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Hoover v. Norwest Private Mortgage Banking 605 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 594 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Ctr., Inc., -86 (Minn.1996) (barring claim under Whistleblower Act where plaintiff alleged same facts and sought redress for same discrimination as asserted in MHRA claim); Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc., (barring negligent supervision claim that alleged discriminatory practices, injuries, and
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ctr., Inc., , 484 n. 1 (Minn.1996) (noting-title of “whistleblower act” connotes action by neutral, or one who “blows the whistle” for protection of others in addition to whistle-blower); Bersch v. Rgnonti & Assocs., Inc., (concluding Minn.Stat.
Bersch v. Rgnonti & Associates, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Bersch v. Rgnonti & Associates, Inc. 584 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Ctr., Inc., n. 1 (Minn.1996), the supreme court stated: The popular title of the [whistleblower statute] connotes an action by a neutral — ■ one who is not personally and uniquely affronted by the employer’s unlawful conduct but rather one who “blows the whistle” for the protection of the general public or, at the least, som
Hedglin v. City of Willmar 582 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1998
Hedglin v. City of Willmar 582 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1998
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Sullivan v. Spot Weld, Inc. 560 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Paul Ramsey Medical Ctr., Inc.
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 Minn. 1997
Center, Inc., (holding that reprisal claims brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act bar claims for violation of the Whistleblower Act).