United States Eighth Circuit

In a suit against plaintiff's former employer-clinic and supervisors asserting retaliation claims under state law, pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII and state law, and defamation and battery claims, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the state law whistleblower claim failed as no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff wrote a letter for the purpose of exposing a previously unknown illegality; 2) plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination as the circumstances surrounding her alleged termination did not give rise to an inference of discrimination; 3) the defamation claim failed as there was no provably false statement of fact; and 4) plaintiff's sole remedy for the alleged workplace battery was the Minnesota Workers Compensation Act.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/29/2007
• Published 05/29/2007

Judges

• LOKEN, Chief Judge., Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY  and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Adam A. Gillette of Minneapolis, Minnesota.   Also appearing on the brief was Donald H. Nichols.


• For Appellees:
  
• Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was David J. Duddleston of Minneapolis, Minnesota.   Also appearing on the brief was Gina Janeiro Lisher.