Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women's Center, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANCASTER, Justice.
The issue before us is one of statutory construction. After appellants were feed, they alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (1996), based on their questioning whether another employee was entitled to vacation *271pay under the wage and hour laws. After a jury trial, the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to respondents because the vacation pay practices in this case affected only respondents’ employees and thus did not implicate public policy. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that appellants had…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Pine River State Bank v. MettilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Hoang Minh Ly v. NystromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Cederstrand v. Lutheran BrotherhoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Vlahos v. R&I Construction of Bloomington, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Abraham v. County of HennepinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Krueger v. Zeman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- In Re the Welfare of J.B.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.