# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 29 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Dou gl as James Sel ln er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

MAT Hol di ng s, In c.; M id wes t Ai r Tech no lo gi es , Inc .; MAT In du st rie s LLC;

San bo rn Man uf

act ur in g C om

pa ny

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

10 , 20 17 Fil ed : J un e 1 5, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.Dou gl as J. S e l l n er su ed hi s fo rm er em pl oyer, MAT Hol di ng s an d it s

su bs id ia rie s Mi dwe st Air Tech no lo gi es , In c

. , M AT In du st rie s, an d San bo rn Man uf act ur in g Co m

pa ny (co ll ect iv el y “ MAT”). He al le ge s ret al ia ti on un de r th e Mi nn es o ta W hi st le bl owe r Act, Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 32

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to MAT. Hav in g juri sd ic ti o n un de r 28 U.S.C. 12 91
, th is co ur t

rev ers es an d re m an ds

. I.

MAT m an uf

act ur es a n d m ark et s ai r co m pr es so rs , pn eu m at ic ai r to ol s, an d

pr es su re wash ers —al l so ld at ret ai le rs an d ho m e cen te rs

. In Ju ne 20 11
, MAT hi red Sel ln er as a la b- qu al it y te ch ni c i a n at it s faci li ty in Sp rin gf ie ld
, Mi nn es ot a. His

pr im ary res po ns ib il it y was to co nd uc t la b te st in g an d rep or t th e res ul ts to su pe rv is or s. Trav is W

. St ro ng , th e Qua li ty Ass ur an ce an d Pro du ct Serv ic e Man ag er, was Sel ln er’s di rect su pe rv is or . Alan D. (“ Bu tc h” ) St ark is th e fac il it y ’s gen eral m an ag er.

On Sel ln er’s fir st da y , St ro ng to ld hi m t h a t o n e of MAT’s pr od uc ts , th e Hon ba se pu m

p, ha d se rio us pr ob le m s wit h oi l le ak ag e du rin g te st in g. I n Aug us t 20 11
, MAT be ga n wor ki ng wit h th e ret a i l e r S e a r s to ad d a co m pr es so r wit h th e H o nb as e pu m

p to Sear s’ Craf

ts m an pr od uc t li ne

. Late r th at m on th
, Sel ln er wa s

as si gn ed to co m

pl et e te st in g whe th er cert ai n ch an ge s to th e Hon ba se pu m p im pr ov ed oi l co ns um

pt io n a nd li fe p erfo rm an ce.

On Mar ch 29
, 20 12
, Sel ln er al le ge s St ark to ld hi m to “ ge t to ge th er ev erythi ng [th ey ] ha d on th e [Ho nb as e] pu m p.” Sel ln er ga th ered an d de li ve red th e da ta to St ark

. Ac c o rd in g to Sel ln er, la te r th at da y Eng in eeri ng Lab Man ag er Jo el D. S ch il le r sa id th at th e res ul ts Sel ln er co m pi le d were “ sh *t ” an d co ul d no t be us ed in an y rep or t fo r Sear s.

Sel ln er cl ai m s th at wit hi n ho ur s, St ark en te red hi s of fic e an d sa id Sear s cal le d
MAT “ on th e carp et ” fo r ov ers ta ti ng th e pe rfo rm an ce an d qu al it y of th e Hon ba se

-2

-pu m

p. St ark th en al le ge dl y to ld Sel ln er to pr od uc e a rep or t sh owi ng no m ajor is su es wit h th e Hon ba se pu m

p. Sel ln er sa y s th at whe n he to ld St ark th at no un it s pe rfo rm ed wit ho ut m ajor is su es , St ark sa id
, “ well
, if y ou do n’t do th is
, we’re al l go in g to be on th e st reet —n o, y ou ’re go in g to be on th e st reet .” Sel ln er st at es th at whe n he t o ld
St ark th at he wou ld no t fal si fy an y te st in g da ta an d th at hi s req ue st was il le ga l, St ark

sa id he sh ou ld “ ge t crea ti ve wit h [h is ] do cu m en ta ti on .” In hi s te st im on y , Jo sh ua Bea ch , a lab tec hn ic ia n, s wears he ov erh eard th es e p art s of the co nv ers at io n: Sta rk

sa y in g th at Sear s was cal li ng MAT “ on th e carp et ,” St ark en co ur ag in g Sel ln er to ge t

crea ti ve wit h te st in g, an d Sel ln er refu si ng

. Bea ch sa y s th at aft er th e co n v e r sa ti on wit h St ark
, Sel ln er sa id
, “ W el l, th ere’s my job .” Acco rd in g to Sel ln er, St ark

co nt in ue d to ret ur n to hi s of fic e th ro ug ho ut th e da y , pr es su rin g hi m t o c o mp l e t e a
rep or t wi th fal si fie d d at a.

Sel ln er te st ifi ed th at th ro ug ho ut th e n e x t da y , Mar ch 30
, St ark co nt in ue d to
pr es su re hi m , an d Sel ln er co nt in ue d to refu se

. Lat e r t h a t d a y , Sel ln er cal le d th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of Lab or an d In du st ry (MNOSHA). He re p o r t e d he was i n s tru ct ed to “ do ct or up so m e do cu m en ta ti on .” He al so fil le d ou t an on li ne f o r m. Bea ch swe ars th at “ a da y or two ” la te r, he to ld St ro ng ab ou t Sel ln er’s rep or t to MNOSHA.

On Mar ch 30
, MAT po st ed a job op en in g fo r a Qua li ty Ass ur an ce/ Test Lab Lead pe rs on

. St ro n g reco m m en de d Sel ln er fo r th e pr om ot io n; St ark ap pr ov ed

. Sel ln er le arn ed of hi s pr om ot io n on Apr il 3, jus t be fo re he an d St ro ng le ft fo r Ch in a

on bu si ne ss

. On Apr il 10
, whi le Sel ln er was in Ch in a, Ja ni s Neb el
, th e co rp or at e Dire ct or of Hu man Res ou rces at MAT, rece iv ed an an on y m ou s em ai l accu si ng Sel ln er of in ap pr op ria te co nd uc t. On Apr il 16
, Sel ln er ret ur ne d fro m Ch in a. St ro ng

reco m m en de d an ab ov e-s ta nd ard pa y in crea se al on g wit h th e pr om ot io n, sa y in g th at Se l l n e r “ br ou gh t va st in te ll ect ua l kn owl ed ge an d ex pe rie nc e acro ss al l face ts .”
St ro ng an d S ta rk si gn ed th e p ap erwo rk pro po si ng th e p ay in crea se

.

-3

-Neb el in ve st ig at ed
, on -s it e, pe rs on ne l is su es at th e Sp rin gf ie l d f a c i li ty fro m Apr il 23 th ro ug h 25

. Sev eral em pl oyees m et wit h Neb el an d m ad e al le ga ti on s ab ou t Sel ln er’s wor kp la ce be ha vi or

. Sel ln er sa y s th at he to ld Neb el he was as ke d to “ fu dg e
te st res ul ts ou t of th e la b whe n th e un it s were fai li ng to sa ve th e Sear s co nt ract .” The

ne xt da y , Sel ln er w a s t erm in at ed

. He ne ve r rece iv ed th e pa y in crea se or th e
pr om ot io n. MAT m ai nt ai ns it fir e d Sel ln er fo r “ un acce pt ab le co nd uc t” in cl ud in g

“ in ap pr op ria te an d of

fen si v e s t a t e m en ts m ad e to an d ab ou t hi s co ll eag ue s, an d in ab il it y to m ai nt ai n po si ti ve an d pro du ct iv e rel at io ns hi ps wit h hi s co-wo rk ers , an d

en ga gi ng in co nd uc t t ha t ad ve rs el y affec te d t he pro du ct iv it y of t he work pl ace.”

Sel ln er su ed MAT fo r wro ng fu l t e r mi n at io n un de r th e Mi nn es ot a W hi st le bl owe r Act (MWA), Mi nn

. St at

. § 18 1.9 32

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d MAT

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e MWA cl ai m

. Sel ln er al so br ou gh t fiv e ot he r cl ai m s, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d an d Sel ln er do es no t ap pe al

. He ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of hi s M W A cla im

.

II.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t,

co ns id eri ng th e fact s m os t fav or ab ly to Sel ln er. Se e AuBu cho n v. Geit hner
, 74 3 F.3 d
63 8, 6 41 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

To reco ve r un de r th e MWA, Sel ln er m us t pr ov e th a t MAT “ to ok ad ve rs e

em pl oym e n t act io n ag ai ns t [h im ] be cau se []he en ga ge d in st at ut or il y pr ot ect ed

co nd uc t, he re, m ak in g a go od fai th rep or t of a su sp ect ed vi ol at io n of la w.” Fj el st a

v. Zog g Der m at ol

og y , 48 8 F.3 d 80 4, 80 8 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 7 )

. An em pl oyee al le gi ng
ret al ia ti on ne ed no t sh ow th at th e al le ge d co nd uc t was act ua ll y un la wfu l, on ly th at th e

em pl oyee “ in go od f

a i t h
, rep or te d a vi ol at io n or su sp ect ed vi ol at io n of la w to an

em pl oyer.” Se e Ped

e r s e n v . Bi o-

Med ic al Ap pl ic at io ns , 77 5 F.3 d 10 49
, 10 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (in te rp ret in g th e MWA). Fal si fy in g te st da ta is a st at e-l aw vi ol at io n;

-4

-rep or ti ng it is pr ot ect ed co nd uc t un de r th e MWA. Se e Min n. Sta t. § 32 5D.4 4 ; Min n.

Sta t. § 18 1.9 32

. Term in at io n i s a n ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n. Wa

gn er v. Ca m pb el l
, 77 9 F.3 d 76 1, 76 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). The is su e is th e cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n S el ln er’s p ro te ct ed co nd uc t an d h is fir in g.

Ret al ia ti on cl ai m s un de r th e MWA m ay be pr ov en by di rect ev id en ce, or in it s ab se nc e, un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng st ru ct ur e. Wo od v. Sa tC om Mk tg ., LL C
, 70 5 F.3 d 82 3, 82 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Dire ct ev id en ce is “ ev id en ce of a
sp eci fic li nk be twee n th e al le ge d di sc riminat or y an im us an d th e ch al le ng ed de ci si on ,
su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng by a reas on ab le fact fin de r th at an il le gi ti m at e cri te rio n
act ua ll y m ot iv at ed th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” Id

. (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d)

. Dire ct ev id en ce “ in cl ud [es ] ev id en ce o f co nd uc t or st at em en ts by p ers on s in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on -m ak in g pr oc es s th at m ay be vi ewed as di rect ly refl ect in g th e al le ge d di sc riminat or y at ti tu de .” Thom as v. H e a r t l a n d Em p’ t Ser vs . LLC

, 79 7 F.3 d 52 7, 52 9- 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) ( i n t ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. “ Dire ct ” refe rs to th e cau sa l

st r e n g t h of th e pr oo f, no t whe th er it is ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Y ou ng -Los ee v. Gra ph ic Pac ka

gi ng In t’l , In c. , 63 1 F.3d 90 9, 91 2 (8t h Cir. 20 11 ). Dire ct ev id en ce sh ou ld “ refl ect a ne ga ti ve at ti tu de to ward [pr ot ect ed co nd uc t] and

. . . f or ecas t ho w th e em pl oyer wou ld de al wit h th e ad ve rs e si tu at io n if it aro se .” Fj el st a , 48 8 F.3 d at 81 0.

Sel ln er arg ue s th at St ark ’s Mar ch 29 co m m en t— “ we’re al l go in g to be on th e
st reet —n o, y ou ’re go in g to be on th e st reet ” if Sel ln er di d no t “ ge t crea ti ve wit h [h is ] do cu m en ta ti on ”—i s di rect ev id en ce of ret al ia ti on

. MAT ack no wled ge s th at St ark is

a pe rs on “ in vo lv ed in th e de ci si on -m ak in g pr oc es s.” Se e Thom as , 79 7 F.3 d at 52 9-
30

. The is su e is whe th er St ark ’s co m m en t ad du ces a “ sp eci fic li nk b et ween th e al le ge d di sc rimina t or y an im us an d th e ch al le ng ed de ci si on .” Se e id

. Tak in g al l
in fere nc es fo r Sel ln er, St ark ’s rem ark th at Sel ln er wou ld “ be on th e st reet ” fo reca st ed ho w MAT wou ld de al wit h Sel ln er’s refu sa l to “ ge t c r e a t i ve wit h [h is ]

-5

-do cu m en ta ti on .” Se e Fj el st a , 48 8 F.3 d at 81 0. St ark ’s co m m en t pr ov id es a sp eci fic li nk be twee n S el ln er’s p ro te ct ed co nd uc t an d h is ter m in at io n.

MAT as se rts th ere is in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of a cau sa l li nk be twee n th e al le ge d

co m m en t an d Sel ln er’s fir in g. MAT an d th e di st ric t co ur t ci te bo th Y ou ng -Lo se e an d Fjel st a to co nc lu de th at St ark ’s Mar ch 29 co m m en t is “ to o re mote in ti m e” fro m Sel ln er’s Apr il 26 fir in g to be di rect ev id en ce. Neit he r Y ou ng -Lo se e no r Fjel

st a se t

a sp eci fic ti m e pe rio d on th e vi ab il it y of di rect ev id en ce. Se e Y ou ng -Los ee , 63 1 F.3 d

at 91 2- 13 ; Fj el

st a , 48 8 F .3d at 8 10 . In Fjel st a , th e al le ge d di rect ev id en ce “ di d no t refl ect a ne ga ti ve at ti tu de to ward [th e pr ot ect e d c ha ract eri st ic ] ge ne ral ly an d in no
way fo reca st ho w th e em

pl oyer wou ld de al wit h th e si tu at io n if it aro se .” Fj el st a , 48 8
F.3 d at 81 0. “ [A]t su m

m ary jud gm en t, a p la in ti ff ca n e st ab li sh a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n hi s co m

pl ai nt s an d an ad ve rs e act io n th ro ug h ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce, su ch

as th e ti m in g o f th e two ev en ts .” Wi ls on v. Ar ka ns as Dep’ t o f Hum an Ser vs . , 8 50
F.3 d 36 8, 37 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), ci ti ng Turn er v. Gon za le s , 42 1 F.3 d 68 8, 69 6- 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). A ti m e pe rio d of s i x w e e ks be twee n th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y an d ad ve rs e
act io n can su pp or t an inf

eren ce of retal ia ti on th at su rv iv es su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Cha vez -Lav ag ni no v. Mo ti va ti on Ed uc. Tra in in g, In c. , 76 7 F.3 d 74 4, 75 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s ix week s be twee n em pl o ye e ’s p ro te ct ed co nd uc t an d te rm in at io n su pp or ts

cau sa l in fere nc e of ret al ia ti on ); Benn et t v. Ri cel an d Fo od s, In c. , 72 1 F.3 d 54 6, 55 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s am e). Cf

. Cl ar k Ct y. Sch. Dis t. v. Br eed

en , 53 2 U.S. 26 8, 27 3- 74 ( 2 0 0 1) (p er cu ria m ) (ci ti ng cas es whe re th ree- m on th an d fo ur -m on th pe rio ds are in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of cau sa li ty). Here, th e 27 -d ay ga p be twee n Sel ln er’s rep or t to MNOSHA—wh ic h St ro ng al le ge dl y kn ew ab ou t wit hi n “ on e or two da y s” — an d hi s fir in g crea te s an in fere nc e of retal ia ti on at su m m ary jud gm en t. St ark ’s di sc riminat or y

co m m en t cam e on e da y be fo re Sel ln er’s rep or t to MNOSHA an d is no t to o rem ot e in ti m e to be di rect ev id en ce.

MAT be li ev es th at in te rv en in g ev en ts be twee n St ark ’s co m m en t an d Sel ln er’s fir in g de st ro y th e “ sp eci fic li nk ” ne ed ed fo r di rect ev id en ce. MAT ci te s Ped er se n as

-6

-a cas e whe re in te rv en in g ev en ts de st ro y ed th e sp eci fic li nk

. Se e Ped er se n , 77 5 F.3 d

at 10 54

. The re, th e in te rv en in g ev en ts were th e em pl oyer’s “ de c i s io n to ret ur n Ped ers en to wor k on a co rrec ti ve act io n pl an , pr om is es to ret rai n Ped ers en to he r
pr ev io us po si ti on wit h [th e em pl oyer], an d Ped ers en ’s co nt in ue d fai lu re to retu rn to

wor k de sp it e [th e em

pl oyer’s] effo rts .” Se e Ped er se n , 77 5 F

. 3 d a t 1 05 4. Bec au se MAT to ok no ne of t he se act io ns , Ped er se n do es no t ap pl y

.

MAT al so cl ai m s th at St ark ’s “ su pp or t [o f] em pl oym en t de ci si on s be n e f ic ia l

to Sel ln er” aft er Mar ch 29 de st ro ys t h e s p e c ifi c li nk

. Howev er, St ark ’s su pp or t of Sel ln er’s em

pl oym en t can be th e fo un da ti on of an in fere nc e th at MAT’s ex pl an at io n f o r h i s fir in g ha s “ no ba si s in fact or was no t act ua ll y im po rta nt to [MAT].” S e e Sm i t h v . A l le n Hea lt h Sys

. , 30 2 F.3 d 82 7, 83 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ Rec en t fav or ab le

rev ie ws are of

te n us ed as ev id en ce th at th e em pl oyer’s pr of

fere d ex pl an at io n fo r th e ad ve rs e act io n ha d no ba si s in fact or was no t act ua ll y im po rta nt to th e em

pl oyer.”);
St al li ng s v. Hus sm an n Co rp . , 44 7 F.3 d 10 41
, 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at

an em pl oyee rece iv in g a fav or ab le rev ie w sh or tl y be fo re te rm in at i o n su pp or ts a fin di ng of r et al ia ti on ).

MAT as se rts th at it fir ed Sel ln er fo r “ un acce pt ab le co nd uc t” in th e wor kp la ce. Thi s co ur t d o e s no t di sc us s th e m eri ts of MAT’s cl ai m be cau se “ [e]vi de nc e of th e

em pl oyer’s m ot iv es fo r th e act io n, an d whe th er th e pr es en ce o f a mi x e d m ot iv es de feat s th e pl ai nt iff ’s cl ai m , is a tri al is su e, no t in te nd ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” Se e Kr at ze r v. R oc kw el

l Co ll in s, I nc. , 39 8 F .3d 10 40 , 10 46 (8t h Cir. 20 05 ). Thi s co ur t ho ld s on ly th at St ark ’s co m m en t— vi ewed m os t fav or ab ly to Sel ln er— is “ su ffi ci en t
to su pp or t a fin di ng by a reas on ab le fact fin de r th at an il le gi ti m at e cri te rio n act ua ll y

m ot iv at ed th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on .” Se e Wo od , 70 5 F .3d at 8 28

.

III.

The MAT de fen da nt s c o n t e n d th at so m e of th em are no t pr op er pa rti es

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ru le on th is fact -in te ns iv e is su e, th is co ur t le av es it

-7

-fo r rem an d. Se e Si ng le to n v. Wul ff
, 42 8 U.S. 10 6, 12 1 (1 97 6) (“ The m at te r of wha t
qu es ti on s m ay be ta ke n up an d res ol ve d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap p e a l is on e le ft

pr im ari ly to th e di sc ret io n of th e co ur ts of ap p eal s, to be ex erci se d on th e fact s of
in di vi du al cas es .”); Anne x Med ., In c. v. Bur wel

l
, 76 9 F.3 d 57 8, 58 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (r e man d i n g fo r th e “ di st ric t co ur t to us e it s su pe rio r fact -fi nd in g ab il it ie s to de te rm in e, in th e fir st in st an ce, whe th er su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts ”); Pesk e v. Tang ed ah l
, 61 9 F.2 d 72 9, 73 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (p er cu ria m ) (ex pr es si ng do ub ts as to juri sd ic ti on bu t rem an di ng in li gh t of th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to co ns id er th e is su e).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t is rev ers ed
, an d th e MWA cl ai m is

rem an de d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-