Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The plurality has adopted a legal rule that I am unable to reconcile with the language of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn.Stat. § 181.932 (2008). The plurality’s legal rule imposes an artificial evidentiary hurdle on proving mental state and fails to give proper deference to the jury’s determination of subjective intent. As a consequence, the plurality unnecessarily complicates whis-tleblower law in a manner unsupported by the statutory language. Because I find no job duties exception within the language of the Minnesota…