Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lukens v. State, 408 N.W.2d 569.

51 citing documents.

Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Concurring, Chutich, Thissen, JJ. Lori Dowling Hanson, Minn. 2022
Corp., (“The procedure suggested by the court of appeals is that used in Title VII actions .
A Xiong, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson 929 N.W.2d 398 Minn. 2019
Corp. , , 572-73 (Minn. 1987) (recognizing a public-policy exception to Minnesota's employment-at-will rule).
Burt v. Rackner, Inc. 902 N.W.2d 448 Minn. 2017
We have recognized a narrow common-law public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing an employee to bring an action for wrongful discharge at common law only where “a termination is the result of an employee’s refusal to do an act that the employee, in good faith, believes to be illegal.” Dukowitz, d at 151 ; Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref Corp.
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 874 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 2016
Teresa McDonald v. Allina Health System d/b/a United Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Barbara Peterson v. HealthEast Woodwinds Hospital Minn. Ct. App. 2015
§§ 2601-54 (2012); (2) a violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (2014); (3) a common-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, see Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (4) a common-law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) a common-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools 857 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Corp., d 588, 590-92 (Minn. App. 1986), aff’d
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz argues that our decisions in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., and Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc., establish a cause of action for wrongful discharge if an employee can identify a clear mandate of public policy that the employer violated when it discharged the employee.
Finn v. Alliance Bank 838 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Corp., in which the supreme court held that “an employee may bring an action for wrongful discharge if that employee is discharged for refusing to participate in an activity that the employee, in good faith, believes violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation adopted pursuant to law”).
Schmitz v. United States Steel Corp. 831 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc. 822 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Corp., (in a case involving refusal to violate the Clean Water Act, holding that “an employee may bring an action for wrongful discharge if that employee is discharged for refusing to participate in an activity that the employee, in good faith, believes violates any state or federal law or rule or regulation
In re the Estate of Neuman 819 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Corp., -72 (Minn.1987); see also Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc., , 457 n. 5 (Minn.2006) (recognizing continued vitality of Minnesota’s common-law claim of wrongful discharge).
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 815 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc. 715 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2006
§§ 181.931-.935 (2004), precludes common-law wrongful-discharge claims premised on our holding in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc. 696 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 639 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2002
Appellants’ retaliatory discharge claims are similar to the employee’s claim in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., aff'g which we identified as a wrongful discharge claim.
Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc. 637 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 2002
Abraham v. County of Hennepin 622 N.W.2d 121 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The bases for the holding were rule 38.01, addressed above, and Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Cokley v. City of Otsego 623 N.W.2d 625 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
1817, 1824 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. 586 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., -91 (Minn.App.1986) (recognizing tort of wrongful discharge that requires termination contravene “clear mandate of public policy”), aff'd, , 571 (Minn.1987); see also Jonathan W.J.
Hedglin v. City of Willmar 582 N.W.2d 897 Minn. 1998
In Minnesota, our court of appeals approved the public policy exception to at-will employment in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., aff 'd
Carter v. Peace Officers Standards & Training Board 547 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Larson v. New Richland Care Center 538 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
1364, 1369-70 (D.Minn.1993); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref.
Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc. 530 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., -71 (Minn.1987).
Bolton v. DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, STATE 527 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Corp., (noting that after enactment of the Whistleblower Act, the court was no longer required to consider the policy question of whether Minnesota should recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge); Piekarski v. Home Owners Sav.
Villarreal v. Independent School District No. 659 520 N.W.2d 735 Minn. 1994
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., Minn.Stat.
Randall v. Northern Milk Products, Inc. 519 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
McGrath v. TCF Bank Savings, FSB 502 N.W.2d 801 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Corp., , 571-72 (Minn.1987) (three-part McDonnell Douglas type analysis applied to common-law wrongful discharge claim where employee was discharged after refusing to violate a federal statute); Snesrud v. Instant Web, Inc., -28 (Minn.App.
Strauss v. Thorne 490 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply, (Minn.App.
Parnell v. River Bend Carriers, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 442 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
1 Cf. Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (employee can bring wrongful discharge action if discharged for refusing to participate in believed illegal activity).
Snesrud v. Instant Web, Inc. 484 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In support of his argument, Snesrud relies *427 largely on the decisions in Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., aff'd
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co. 478 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1991
See also Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Co., -71 (Minn.1987) (allowing at-will employee to pursue retaliatory discharge claim).
Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. 474 N.W.2d 174 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Corp., under promissory estoppel theory, employee may recover damage when she leaves one job in reliance upon employment offer with another employer who revoked the offer before she could begin work.
Graham v. Special School District No. 1 472 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 1991
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Rico v. State 472 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 1991
When Gregg removed Rico from his unclassified position in July 1986, this court had not decided Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining, (allowing “an action for wrongful discharge if th[e] employee is discharged for refusing to participate in an activity that the employee, in good faith, believes violates” the law), and the legislature had not enacted the whistle-blower statute.
McDaniel v. United Hardware Distributing Co. 469 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 1991
1 Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining *86 Corp.
McIntire v. State 458 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
an at-will employee refused to dispense leaded gasoline into an automobile equipped to receive only unleaded gasoline, correctly believing that such an act would be in violation of the law.
Bucko v. First Minnesota Savings Bank, F.S.B. 452 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
See Potter v. LaSalle Court Sports & Health Club, City of Minneapolis v. Richardson, 307 Minn. 80, 91 , see also Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (noting, in a wrongful discharge case, that “punitive damages are appropriate when otherwise wrongs may go unredressed.”); Wilson, d at 150 (noting punitive damages are appropriate in actions where actual compensatory damages are likely to be low).
Larson v. Dunn 449 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
19, 1988); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (recognizing claim for wrongful discharge), aff'd
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 450 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1990
Corp., (holding at-will employee has action for wrongful discharge when terminated for refusal to violate a law); Bussard v. College of St.
Clough v. Ertz 442 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See also Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Vonch v. Carlson Companies, Inc. 439 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Bratton v. Menard, Inc. 438 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
First, this rule is modified where an employee handbook meeting the requirements for the formation of a unilateral contract provides for other rights, second, where the discharge violates public policy, see Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (employee fired for refusing to dispense leaded gasoline into vehicle requiring unleaded gasoline in contravention of federal law has cause of action for wrongful discharge); third, where independent consideration be *119 yond the personal employment
Knudsen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 437 N.W.2d 733 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Kresko v. Rulli 432 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.
Stowman v. Carlson Companies, Inc. 430 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., affd
Eyler v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 427 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
for rev. denied (Minn. July 26, 1984) (employer’s insistence on repugnant conduct may constitute good cause to quit); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., (employee who was discharged for refusing to pump leaded gas into a vehicle designed for unleaded gas in violation of federal law had cause of action for wrongful discharge).
Bohdan v. Alltool Mfg., Co. 411 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.