Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc.
Minnesota Supreme Court
784 N.W.2d 220 (2010)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Brian Kidwell (plaintiff) was in-house counsel for Sybaritic, Inc. (defendant). Kidwell sent an email to Sybaritic management, warning that if Sybaritic did not comply with discovery requests in an ongoing litigation, it would violate federal law and would be subject to sanctions. The email stated that if Sybaritic did not comply, Kidwell would report the violation to the proper authorities. Subsequently, Kidwell sued Sybaritic to recover under Minnesota’s whistleblower statute. At trial, Kidwell testified that he “hoped [he] could pull th[e] company back into compliance” by sending the email. He also testified that sending the email and giving the advice contained in the email was “what lawyers do.” Sybaritic filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals held that the whistleblower statute contained a blanket job-duties exception that applied and ruled in Sybaritic’s favor. Kidwell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gildea, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
