Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01901/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01901-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FedEx Ground Package Systems
Appellee
Debra L. Hitchcock
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 ___________

No. 05-1901

___________

Debra L. Hitchcock, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2005

Filed: April 6, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Debra Hitchcock (Hitchcock) sued FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

(FedEx) under the Minnesota Whistleblower Statute, Minn. Stat. § 181.932. The

district court1

 granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that

Hitchcock’s conduct was not protected under the statute. Hitchcock appeals, and we

affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2006 Entry ID: 2029905
-2-

I.

Hitchcock worked as a terminal manager in FedEx’s St. Paul, Minnesota,

facility. Beginning in May 2001, Hitchcock complained to her superiors that the

FedEx facility was unsafe and that FedEx was engaging in illegal activities, including

classifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees and terminating

drivers who were pro-union. During the next year, drivers began to quit and

complain, and Hitchcock's facility received a below-average rating. Hitchcock

received a negative performance review and was placed on a ninety-day improvement

plan. In the summer of 2002, Hitchcock refused to terminate drivers simply because

they were pro-union, allegedly because she believed this to be unlawful. The record

does not indicate that Hitchcock informed FedEx that she refused the order for this

particular reason. In July or August of 2002, Hitchcock allegedly ordered her

employees to miscode packages to make the St. Paul facility appear more productive.

Hitchcock claims that FedEx never discussed this misconduct with her. In September

2002, FedEx placed Hitchcock on a ninety-day performance plan due to inconsistency

in the quality administration process, lack of communication, and contractor turnover.

Hitchcock was later demoted. FedEx terminated Hitchcock on October 5, 2002.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Aviation

Charter, Inc. v. Aviation Research Group/US, 416 F.3d 864, 868 (2005). Summary

judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Aviation

Charter, Inc., 416 F.3d at 868. We view the evidence and inferences that may

reasonably be drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. Aviation Charter, Inc., 416 F.3d at 868. 

Appellate Case: 05-1901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2006 Entry ID: 2029905
-3-

The Minnesota Whistleblower Statute provides that an employer shall not

discharge an employee because the employee, in good faith, reported a violation or

suspected violation of law to an employer, governmental body, or law enforcement

official. Minn. Stat. § 181.932(a). To be protected under the statute, an employee

must make the report for the purpose of exposing an illegality. Obst v. Microtron,

Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 202 (Minn. 2000). The Minnesota Whistleblower Statute also

provides that an employer shall not discharge an employee because the employee

refused an order to perform an action that the employee objectively believed would

violate the law if the employee informed the employer that she refused the order for

that reason. Minn. Stat. § 181.932(c). The plaintiff employee has the initial burden

of establishing a prima facie case under the statute. See McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800–04 (1973); Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001,

1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (applying the McDonnell Douglas framework when the district

court dismissed the plaintiff’s Minnesota Whistleblower claim on summary

judgment). To do so, the employee must show that she engaged in statutorily

protected conduct. See Pope, 406 F.3d at 1010. 

Hitchcock failed to show that she engaged in statutorily protected conduct

under the first provision of the statute because she did not demonstrate that she

reported alleged illegalities with the purpose of blowing the whistle on FedEx.

Similar to the circumstance in Obst v. Microtron, Inc., Hitchcock had no whistle to

blow because she reported to FedEx only what it already knew. See Obst, 614

N.W.2d at 203. Her reports merely expressed her dissatisfaction with FedEx’s

conduct and policy, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that her purpose

in reporting was to expose an illegality. 

Hitchcock also failed to show that she engaged in statutorily protected conduct

under the provision of the statute concerning the refusal of an employer's order. The

record does not support Hitchcock's allegation that she informed FedEx that she

refused an order because she believed it was illegal.

Appellate Case: 05-1901 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2006 Entry ID: 2029905
-4-

In light of Hitchcock’s failure to establish a prima facie case under the

Minnesota Whistleblower Statute, the district court did not err in entering summary

judgment against her, and the judgment is thus affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1901 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2006 Entry ID: 2029905