201308P.pdf   02/16/2021  Anita M. Kempf  v.  Hennepin County
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  20-1308
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Employment discrimination. Plaintiff failed to make a prima 
   facie case that her suspension was in retaliation for statutorily 
   protected activity because she failed to communicate or report any sexual 
   harassment prior to her suspension; with respect to her claim she was 
   terminated in retaliation for complaining about her treatment, the 
   investigation preceding her suspension and how the defendant handles 
   gender-based threats, there was no direct evidence of retaliation, and the 
   court would analyze the claims under McDonnell Douglas; assuming plaintiff 
   made a prima facie case, the defendant articulated several legitimate, 
   non-retaliatory grounds for the discharge; plaintiff did not challenge all 
   of the grounds, arguing, instead that the reasons were intertwined and 
   rest on a "fishy" basis; the court determines that plaintiff has not shown 
   the defendant's reasons are sufficiently intertwined or fishy that 
   rebutting only some of them discredits them all; since the employer 
   provided legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds, the district court did not 
   err in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's 
   Title VII termination-based claim; it is not clear under Minnesota law 
   whether plaintiff's claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act are 
   barred by the exclusivity provision of the Minnesota Human Rights Act; in 
   light of the uncertainty, the better course of action is to dismiss the 
   MWA claims without prejudice so they can be taken up by the Minnesota 
   state courts.