WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

Minnesota Law

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Minnesota State Bar No.]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - MINN. R. EVID. 408

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]") on [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications to our office.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination and to resolve this matter short of litigation. [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client violates Minnesota law and exposes the Company to substantial liability.

I. MINNESOTA EMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Its Exceptions

Minnesota follows the employment-at-will doctrine. See Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 117 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. 1962). However, Minnesota courts recognize important exceptions:

1. Public Policy Exception

Minnesota recognizes a public policy exception to at-will employment. See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), aff'd, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987).

Protected activities include:
- Refusing to violate the law at employer's direction
- Exercising a statutory right
- Performing a public duty (jury service, military service)

2. Implied Contract Exception

Minnesota recognizes implied contracts based on employer handbooks and personnel policies. See Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 1983) (seminal case establishing handbook contracts).

3. Minnesota Whistleblower Act (Minn. Stat. 181.931 et seq.)

Provides comprehensive protection for employees who:
- Make good faith reports of violations of law
- Refuse to perform actions they believe violate law
- Are requested by public bodies to participate in investigations

B. Key Minnesota Statutes

Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq.)
- Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation, familial status
- Covers employers with one or more employees
- Broader protections than federal law

Minnesota Whistleblower Act (Minn. Stat. 181.931 et seq.)
- 2-year statute of limitations
- Protects good faith reports of suspected violations
- Provides for back pay, reinstatement, and attorney's fees

Minnesota WARN Act (Minn. Stat. 116L.976)
- Requires 60-day notice for plant closings affecting 50+ employees

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date] as a [Job Title] in [City], Minnesota.

Employment Summary:

Our client was a dedicated employee with an excellent performance record:
- [Describe positive performance history]
- [Describe promotions, raises, commendations]
- [Describe any relevant achievements]

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe protected activity]:

• Made a good faith report of violations of law under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act
• Refused to perform an action that would violate law
• Filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
• Exercised rights under [specific statute]
• [Other protected activity]

C. The Wrongful Termination

On [Termination Date], [Company Short Name] terminated our client, purportedly for [stated reason]. This stated reason is pretextual, as evidenced by:

1. Temporal proximity: The termination occurred just [X days/weeks] after the protected activity
2. Prior positive treatment: Our client had [no prior discipline / positive reviews / recent promotion]
3. Disparate treatment: Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were [not terminated / treated more favorably]
4. Shifting explanations: [Describe any inconsistent reasons given]
5. Direct evidence: [Describe any statements indicating true motive]

III. LEGAL CLAIMS UNDER MINNESOTA LAW

A. Violation of Minnesota Whistleblower Act (Minn. Stat. 181.931 et seq.)

[If applicable:] The Minnesota Whistleblower Act prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who, in good faith, report violations of law.

Minn. Stat. 181.932 provides:

"An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because... (a) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation, suspected violation, or planned violation of any federal, state, or common law..."

Our client reported [describe violation] on [Date]. [Company Short Name]'s termination constitutes unlawful retaliation.

Remedies under Minn. Stat. 181.935:
- Injunctive relief
- Actual damages (including back pay with interest)
- Reinstatement
- Reasonable attorney's fees and costs

See Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 2000).

B. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

[Company Short Name] terminated our client in violation of Minnesota's public policy against [describe the public policy violated]:

Source of Public Policy: [Cite Minnesota statute, constitutional provision, or court decision]

Minnesota courts recognize that an employee who is discharged for reasons that violate public policy has a claim for wrongful discharge. See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987).

C. Breach of Implied Contract

[If applicable:] Under Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 1983), [Company Short Name]'s Employee Handbook and policies created an implied contract.

Evidence of implied contract:
- Employee Handbook provisions stating [quote relevant language]
- Personnel policies requiring specific termination procedures
- Course of conduct establishing expectation of job security
- Absence of effective disclaimer

See also Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986).

D. Violation of Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq.)

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s termination was motivated by discrimination based on [protected characteristic].

The MHRA prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation, and familial status.

Remedies under Minn. Stat. 363A.29:
- Compensatory damages (including emotional distress)
- Back pay
- Punitive damages (up to 3x compensatory, or $25,000, whichever is greater)
- Reinstatement
- Reasonable attorney's fees

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Back Pay

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress:
- [Describe anxiety, depression, humiliation]
- [Describe impact on health and relationships]
- [Describe medical treatment sought]

Emotional distress damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful, malicious, and in conscious disregard of our client's rights.

Under MHRA (Minn. Stat. 363A.29): Punitive damages up to three times compensatory damages or $25,000, whichever is greater.

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

D. Attorney's Fees

Under Minn. Stat. 181.935 (Whistleblower Act) and Minn. Stat. 363A.29 (MHRA), our client is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

We demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full settlement of all claims.

Additional Terms:
- Neutral reference (dates and position only)
- No contest to unemployment benefits
- Expungement of personnel file
- Mutual non-disparagement
- Confidentiality (terms to be negotiated)

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond within fourteen (14) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are authorized to file suit in the [District Court, [County] County, Minnesota / United States District Court for the District of Minnesota] without further notice.

Causes of Action:
1. Violation of Minnesota Whistleblower Act (Minn. Stat. 181.931 et seq.)
2. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
3. Breach of Implied Contract
4. Violation of Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq.)
5. [Other claims as applicable]

VII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

Immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and ESI regarding our client's employment, performance, and termination.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is protected by Minnesota Rule of Evidence 408 and constitutes a confidential settlement communication.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]
[Minnesota State Bar No.]

Enclosures:
- Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Minnesota Considerations

• Minnesota Whistleblower Act is very broad - "good faith" standard for reports
• Pine River doctrine creates strong implied contract claims from handbooks
• MHRA is broader than federal law - covers more protected classes and smaller employers
• MHRA allows punitive damages (unlike many state civil rights laws)
• Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) is the state agency for discrimination claims
• MDHR charge must be filed within 1 year; civil action within 3 years
• Minnesota is a deferral state for EEOC purposes (300-day deadline)

Venue Options

• Minnesota District Court (general jurisdiction)
• Federal Court (if federal claims or diversity jurisdiction)
• Administrative: MDHR for discrimination claims

Statute of Limitations

Key Minnesota Cases

• Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 1983) (implied contract)
• Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987) (public policy exception)
• Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 2000) (whistleblower statute interpretation)
• Hunt v. IBM Mid Am. Emps. Fed. Credit Union, 384 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1986) (handbook disclaimers)
• Dukowitz v. Hannon Sec. Servs., 841 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. 2014) (MHRA standards)