Hanson v. State
| Citation | 972 N.W.2d 362 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | A20-0747 |
| Parties | Lori Dowling HANSON, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Marshall H. Tanick, Teresa J. Ayling, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Jason Marisam, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.
Leslie L. Lienemann, Culberth & Lienemann, LLP, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Justin D. Cummins, Cummins & Cummins, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Employee Lawyers Association of the Upper Midwest.
Brian T. Rochel, Phillip M. Kitzer, Kitzer Rochel, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Frances E. Baillon, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Nicholas G. B. May, Fabian May & Anderson, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association-Minnesota Chapter.
Appellant Lori Dowling Hanson was terminated from her position as a regional director with respondent State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after an incident at a hotel, where she was staying for a work-related conference. Hanson sued the DNR, alleging that her reporting of suspected illegal activity at the hotel caused her termination, in violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(1) (2020). The district court granted summary judgment for the DNR, concluding that Hanson had not provided evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination or that the DNR's stated reason for terminating her was pretextual. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that even though there was a causal connection, Hanson did not offer evidence of pretext. Hanson v. Dep't of Nat. Res. , No. A20-0747, 2021 WL 1525296, at *5–6 (Minn. App. Apr. 19, 2021). Because we conclude that Hanson did not establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial over whether her alleged protected activity was a motivating factor in the DNR's termination decision, we affirm.
This action arises from the DNR's decision to terminate Hanson from the high-level position she held as the regional director of the northeastern region of Minnesota. Regional directors are the chief spokesperson for the DNR in their respective region and represent the Commissioner in relationships with other governmental units, special interest groups, and Native American tribes. Hanson's position also required her to lead and maintain an outreach program to strengthen partnerships with government agencies, tribes, constituent leaders, and other groups in the region. As one of four regional directors in the State, Hanson reported directly to the DNR Deputy Commissioner. She was an at-will employee who served at the pleasure of the DNR Commissioner and the Governor.
On August 14, 2017, Hanson arrived at Fortune Bay Resort Casino on the Bois Forte Indian Reservation for a work-related conference. The hotel is located within the boundaries of Hanson's DNR region. Hanson was planning to attend meetings over the course of 3 days as a DNR representative on an international water quality board.
During the first night of her stay, Hanson was awakened three times by noises coming from the room next door. She heard "a lot of noise," "a crying baby," and "bodies ... being thrown against the wall." She called the front desk to complain each time.
The next day, Hanson again heard a baby crying in the neighboring room when she left her room that morning and when she returned at lunch. She did not call the front desk or law enforcement to report her concerns but "made a mental note ... that if the baby was still in distress by that evening, [she] would do something."
At dinner, Hanson ordered one alcoholic drink but did not finish it and brought the rest back to her room. After dinner, Hanson went to the hotel hot tub and then went back to her room and tried to sleep. The baby was still crying, so Hanson called the hotel's front desk. Hanson noted that the hotel staff member "was very concerned" and replied to Hanson,
About 10 minutes later, Hanson opened her room door—not wearing any clothes—and peered up and down the hallway for 10 to 12 seconds before returning to her room. Approximately 5 minutes after that, Hanson opened her door, now clothed, and talked to two men in the hallway who were knocking on the neighboring room's door. She told them that she was "pretty concerned about the baby inside," and they replied, "Well, we don't want no baby." The men left shortly after that. Hanson believed these men were "johns or pimps."
A couple of minutes later, Hanson left her room to speak to hotel management. Hotel security called 911 to report a possibly unattended crying baby after hearing Hanson's concerns. A Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police officer was dispatched to the hotel in response.1
Hanson returned to her room and then soon came back out and looked up and down the hallway. Two women opened the door of the neighboring room, one of them holding a bra. One of the women said, "What's your problem?" Hanson responded, "It's gonna go down." Hanson said that she told them that she was "concerned about the baby." According to Hanson, they "kinda laughed" at her and closed the door. This reaction made Hanson "very scared," and she thought that she "had stumbled across something very serious."
After Hanson talked to the two women in the neighboring room, the hotel manager and the head of hotel security talked to the occupants of that room and were let inside. The hotel manager and the head of hotel security later told the BIA officer, after he had arrived, that "everything was secure and the child was safe." They also reported this to Hanson, who still insisted that she talk with law enforcement.
Hanson then called 911. She identified herself as "a state official,"2 asked for a "safe escort" from the hotel, and stated that she was "barricaded" inside because she had "stumbled upon" a prostitution ring.3 She asked the dispatcher to send St. Louis County law enforcement officers because hotel management had "only offered to call BIA."4 When the dispatcher informed Hanson that it "is routine for them" to call the BIA, Hanson responded, When informed that they had "a call to check on a child," Hanson replied, "Ok, do you have a call to check on a Minnesota state official who would like safe ... exit?" Hanson also reported that "they could be suffocating this child as we speak." Though she told the dispatcher that she felt "threatened," she refused to answer whether anyone made threats to her.5 She told the dispatcher that "law enforcement [should] use full precautions" when responding.
During the 911 call, Hanson received a phone call from the St. Louis County Undersheriff, who asked, Hanson asked him to send a St. Louis County officer to provide her "safe exit" from the hotel.6
The BIA officer and a Breitung Township police officer then arrived at the hotel and knocked on Hanson's door. The hotel manager and head of hotel security arrived after Hanson opened her door. Hanson stated that they asked her for identification, if she had any warrants, and whether she would take a breathalyzer test.
The BIA officer then knocked on the neighboring room's door and found one woman and four children. He entered the room, along with the hotel manager. He noted that "[t]he room was clean and orderly."7 The woman explained that the youngest child "was teething and crying a lot."
Hanson, who was still talking to the township officer, asked if she could change from her pajamas. She said that "the head guy"8 laughed at her and said, "Yeah, you can go get dressed, but the door's staying open." Hanson felt "very threatened."9
Hanson nevertheless closed the door to her room. The township officer and the head of hotel security then entered the neighboring room.
The BIA officer then knocked on Hanson's door and reported that the children in the neighboring room were "fine" and that the hotel's video surveillance "did not capture any suspicious footage." He told her that "she would be arrested for trespassing if she did not leave the resort within ten minutes." Hanson requested police escort from the reservation, asking for a St. Louis County deputy sheriff. The BIA officer responded with something like, "That's not going to happen."10 Hanson replied that "she knew people and was calling them now."11 The officer told Hanson that she needed "to pack her things and that management wanted her to leave." Hanson became "angry" and "refused to leave." The officer repeated that Hanson needed "to pack her things." During this encounter, the BIA officer and the township officer smelled alcohol on Hanson's breath.
Hanson asked the officers if it would be possible for her to ask a DNR conservation officer to respond to the hotel. According to Hanson, they "laughed" and said, "No [conservation officer]’s gonna come here—but yeah, ... go ahead." Hanson replied, "I know their boss’[s] boss." Hanson called DNR Captain Tom Provost, the Division of Enforcement's northeast regional manager, and reported that she suspected that child neglect and prostitution were occurring in a neighboring room. Hanson told him that hotel management was "snarky" when she reported her concerns. Hanson said that "she [had] locked herself in her room" and people were "coming to throw her out" of the hotel. Captain Provost advised Hanson to stay in her room and allow entry only to people she could trust and that were affiliated either with law enforcement or hotel management. Hanson requested that Captain Provost send a DNR conservation officer to assist her, and he responded that a sheriff's deputy "at minimum" would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pulczinski v. State
-
Else v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
..., 958 N.W.2d 331, 337–38 (Minn. 2021) (recognizing the principle articulated in Fletcher ); Hanson v. Dep't of Nat. Res. , 972 N.W.2d 362, 380 (Minn. 2022) (Chutich, J., concurring) (quoting Fletcher for this principle). In Marshall , we did not apply our "judicial mind" to the question of ......
-
Aromashodu v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd.
...a genuine issue of disputed fact as to the underlying motivation to accuse Aromashodu of committing a crime. See Hanson v. Dep't of Nat. Res. , 972 N.W.2d 362, 376 (Minn. 2022) (explaining that "shifting reasons ... may give rise to a fact issue about whether the later-stated reasons are pr......