On August 15, 2013, a Washington County, Minnesota jury awarded the former dean of a for-profit university $395,000 under Minnesota’s whistleblower law (M.S.A. § 181.932).  This verdict is consistent with the substantial verdicts we have seen of late in whistleblower cases around the country.

Background:  Plaintiff Heidi Weber (Weber) was the dean of the medical assistant program at Globe University (the University), a for-profit university in Woodbury, Minnesota.  She held that position for a little over a year, and previously served as an adjunct faculty member and program chair.  During her tenure as dean, she allegedly complained to Globe officials that the school used falsified job placement numbers, lied to students about salary ranges and job placement statistics, failed to train students adequately, and paid commissions to admissions staff to boost enrollment.  The University terminated Weber’s employment in 2011, allegedly based on her “poor performance and lack of leadership.”

Court Proceedings:  Weber brought suit against the University under Minnesota’s whistleblower law, alleging that she was discharged for complaining of the above-referenced conduct.  A central issue in the case was whether Weber’s complaints to her supervisor could serve as a cognizable basis for a whistleblower action under Minnesota law.  The University argued that Weber did not engage in activity protected by the statute, as she complained to her supervisors, and not to an outside official or agency.  Ultimately, the court and the jury found that Weber had indeed engaged in protected activity.

Jury Verdict:  On August 15, 2013, after a week-long trial, a jury concluded that the University violated the Minnesota whistleblower law and ordered the University to pay Weber $395,000.  The award included $205,000 for lost wages and $190,000 for emotional distress.

Implications:  This adverse jury verdict underscores the risks attendant to claims under the wide range of state law claims around the country.  Moreover, it dispels the notion that private companies are essentially immune from whistleblower concerns.  Indeed, it serves as a wake-up call to private employers in myriad industries that they are vulnerable to such attacks and should take preventative measures to minimize the risks.

Posted in State-Specific Whistleblower Claims
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Steven J. Pearlman Steven J. Pearlman

Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.

Employment, Restrictive Covenant & Trade Secret, and Whistleblower…

Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.

Employment, Restrictive Covenant & Trade Secret, and Whistleblower Practice. Steven’s national practice focuses on defending companies in federal and state courts and in arbitration fora against the full spectrum of employment-related claims, including claims of executives; restrictive covenant violations; employee raiding; theft of trade secrets; whistleblower retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and similar state laws; and wage-and-hour violations, including class, collective and PAGA actions.

Steven has successfully handled trials in multiple jurisdictions; prevailed in seeking and defending against applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions; defended one of the largest Illinois-only class actions in the history of the federal courts in Illinois (over 90k putative class members); and prevailed following his oral arguments before federal and state appellate courts. He brings his litigation experience (beginning in 1998) to bear in counseling clients to minimize risk and avoid or prepare for success in litigation.

Investigations. Reporting to boards of directors, their audit committees, CEOs and in-house counsel, Steven conducts sensitive investigations and has the unusual experience of testifying in federal court in connection with investigations. His investigations have involved complaints of sexual harassment involving C-suite officers; systemic violations of employment laws and company policies; and fraud, compliance failures and unethical conduct.

Thought Leadership and Accolades. Steven was named Lawyer of the Year for Chicago Labor & Employment Litigation in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Chambers has reported:

  • Steven is “one of the best in the country and has a lot of experience”;
  • Steven is as an “outstanding lawyer” who is “very sharp and very responsive,” a “strong advocate,” and an “expert in his field”;
  • He is thoughtful, attentive and demonstrates an acute understanding of matters top of mind for business-minded general counsel; and
  • “He is someone who can navigate the twists and turns of litigation without difficulty.”

Steven was 1 of 12 individuals selected by Compliance Week as a “Top Mind.” Earlier in his career, he was 1 of 5 U.S. lawyers selected by Law360 as a ”Rising Star Under 40” in the area of employment law and 1 of “40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” selected by Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Steven is a U.S. Library of Congress Burton Award Winner for “Distinguished Legal Writing.”

Steven was appointed to Law360’s Employment Editorial Advisory Board and selected as a Contributor to Forbes.com. He has appeared on Bloomberg News (television and radio) and Yahoo! Finance, and is often quoted in leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has engaged Steven to serve as lead counsel on amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts of appeal.

In 2024, Steven received the Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Read more about Steven J. Pearlman
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Illinois Federal Court Grants Employer Summary Judgment on Several Types of Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
July 26, 2023
Ninth Circuit Takes Broad View of Protected Activity under the California Whistleblower Protection Act
November 2, 2022
Florida District Court Limits Scope of Protected Activity under the FCA
June 16, 2022