Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealfiduciaryfiduciary dutygood faithbreach of fiduciary duty

contractlitigationstatuteappealemployment law

Related Cases

Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220, 159 Lab.Cas. P 61,017, 30 IER Cases 1692

Facts

Brian Kidwell was employed as in-house general counsel for Sybaritic, Inc. He sent an email to the management team expressing concerns about illegal activities within the company, including tax evasion and obstruction of justice. Following this email, Kidwell was reassigned and subsequently terminated three weeks later. He claimed his termination was in retaliation for whistleblowing, while Sybaritic counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty.

Kidwell's position involved a variety of duties, including supervising company litigation, providing contract assistance, and advising on employment law issues.

Issue

Did Brian Kidwell engage in conduct protected by the Minnesota Whistleblower Act when he reported suspected illegal activities to his employer as part of his job duties?

The court of appeals reversed, holding that Kidwell did not engage in conduct protected by the whistleblower statute because he was fulfilling the responsibilities of his position of employment when he reported a suspected violation of the law.

Rule

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act does not contain a job duties exception that categorically bars employees from bringing a claim under the statute, but an employee's job duties are relevant in determining whether the employee made a report in good faith for purposes of exposing an illegality.

Minnesota's whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932 (2008), does not contain a job duties exception that categorically bars employees who report an illegality or suspected illegality as part of their job duties from bringing a claim under the statute.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Kidwell's email constituted protected conduct under the whistleblower statute. It concluded that Kidwell's report was made in the course of fulfilling his job responsibilities as in-house counsel, and therefore did not meet the criteria for protected activity. The court emphasized that Kidwell's intent was to provide legal advice rather than to expose wrongdoing, which is a key factor in determining good faith under the statute.

The text of the email thus confirms that Kidwell's purpose was not to 'expose an illegality,' but was to provide legal advice to his client.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, holding that Kidwell did not engage in conduct protected by the Minnesota Whistleblower Act when he reported suspected illegal activities as part of his job duties.

Because we conclude that Kidwell did not offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he engaged in protected conduct, we affirm.

Who won?

Sybaritic, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that Kidwell's actions were not protected under the whistleblower statute, as they were part of his job responsibilities.

Sybaritic is a company that manufactures and sells equipment and spa products to spa and medical-spa industries.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J.Super. 589, 90 A.3d 653

Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898

Seidel v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 616 F.Supp. 1342, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,383

In re Global Crossing, Ltd. Securities Litigation, 313 F.Supp.2d 189

In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849