Whistleblower SOL and contingency fees

[Bill Johns]

Minnesota.

I'm getting mixed signals on the statute of limitations for whistleblower claims in MN. Several attorneys claim a recent decision definitely makes it a 6 year SOL and that its unlikely to change soon. Others say it's still a 2 year SOL. Yet others say its unclear which SOL applies. Is there clarity to be found anywhere on this question? I'm running up against 2 years soon, but I probably won't have the money to proceed until after 2 years have passed.

This leads to the next question.

I was under the mistaken impression that attorneys would take a whistleblower case on contingency, if they would take it at all. I've found several who will take my case but none will take it on contingency, and the fees vary by a considerable amount. Should I take this as a warning that I'm likely to lose, or is charging a flat feee the norm for these cases?

 

[cbg]

What whistle did you blow and on whom did you blow it? To whom did you blow it? That can affect the SOL.

 

[Bill Johns]

What whistle did you blow and on whom did you blow it? To whom did you blow it? That can affect the SOL.

The whistle was blown on the employer, to the employer, about suspected violations by the employer.

 

[Zigner]

The whistle was blown on the employer, to the employer, about suspected violations by the employer.

Well that explains why you can't get any attorneys to take your case...

Why do you think that whistleblower laws protect you as an employee for reporting violations by the employer to the employer?

 

[Bill Johns]

Well that explains why you can't get any attorneys to take your case...

Why do you think that whistleblower laws protect you as an employee for reporting violations by the employer to the employer?

Why wouldn't it?

181.932 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY EMPLOYEES.
§ Subdivision 1.Prohibited action.

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:

(1) 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 or state law or common law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official;

 

[Zigner]

Were you reporting a violation of the law?

 

[cbg]

The whistle was blown on the employer, to the employer, about suspected violations by the employer.

Be specific. What KIND of violations by the employer?

 

[Bill Johns]

Were you reporting a violation of the law?

I reported suspected violations of law and/or rules adopted pursuant to law.

 

[Bill Johns]

Be specific. What KIND of violations by the employer?

Which types of whistleblower claims have 6 year SOL and which ones have 2 year SOL?

 

[quincy]

Which types of whistleblower claims have 6 year SOL and which ones have 2 year SOL?

You were asked for the specific suspected violation. If you want to know the statute of limitations for filing a claim, the type of violation matters.

Generally the statute of limitations for whistleblower claims will be 2 years. This is "generally." Where there is a state statute, the statute of limitations will be controlled by statute.

An example of a whistleblower claim with a 6 year statute of limitations is a worker compensation claim.

Some Minnesota statutes to review are Minnesota statutes section 363A.15, 626.557, 181.67, 181.932, 179.12(4), 177.32 ...

... or you can be specific so we can be specific.

 

[Bill Johns]

Posting too many specifics of my situation on the internet seems unwise. This is the Supreme Court ruling that seems to apply in my case (to my non-legal mind, but also to the legal minds of several employment attorneys). Rather than go into details that I really shouldnt go into online, I'd hope to get some guidance on why this ruling might or might not apply.

six-year-statute-of-limitations-applies-to-minnesota-whistleblower-statute/

 

[quincy]

Posting too many specifics of my situation on the internet seems unwise. This is the Supreme Court ruling that seems to apply in my case (to my non-legal mind, but also to the legal minds of several employment attorneys). Rather than go into details that I really shouldnt go into online, I'd hope to get some guidance on why this ruling might or might not apply.

"six-year-statute-of-limitations-applies-to-minnesota-whistleblower-statute"

I suggest you continue to speak personally to the several employment law lawyers who are providing you with opinions based, I assume, on more information than you want to disclose on a forum. There is no way that anyone here can help you without knowing the facts.

Good luck.

 

[cbg]

I would be willing to take the time to look up the SOL for a single type of violation.

I am not willing to take the time to look up the SOL for every violation an employer could commit and list them. I don't volunteer here to be an unpaid research assistant.

If you're not willing to identify the type of violation, I'm not willing to do your research. You can pay an attorney for that.

 

[Bill Johns]

I would be willing to take the time to look up the SOL for a single type of violation.

I am not willing to take the time to look up the SOL for every violation an employer could commit and list them. I don't volunteer here to be an unpaid research assistant.

If you're not willing to identify the type of violation, I'm not willing to do your research. You can pay an attorney for that.

I am the one who ultimately has to decide if I can afford to wait past the 2 year date, or if I have to sell everything that isn't nailed down in order to file before that date. Even if you looked up the specific violation and rendered your opinion, it would still be just one opinion and it would be at odds with what other attorneys have said. That's why I want to educate myself as to which category it falls into, but nobody seems willing to explain the criteria for the 2 SOL categories so I can make that judgement call. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I'm still the one that has to make that call since attorneys aren't in agreement. I posted a link to the Supreme Court decision that led to the differences of opinion, but it seems to have been deleted.

The best I can do is say that the violation falls under MN Chapter 43A, state personnel management.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

So let me get this straight. You want someone here to guess on what it exactly is and give you advice which you aren't going to take anyway, much as you aren't taking the advice of the lawyers you already talked to?

43A seems to include every law your state has dealing with employees of the state. That is a little broad.