On March 26, 2026, the Eighth Circuit, in Ghosh v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 170 F.4th 1141 (8th Cir. 2026), affirmed the dismissal of whistleblower claims brought by a remote employee whose connections to Minnesota, where the employer was located, consisted of a 12-day visit to the state to participate in mandatory training.
Case Background
The plaintiff in this case was a Hawaii resident, who was hired by defendants in early 2023 as a district sales manager. Upon hire, the plaintiff completed the defendants’ mandatory certification training process and traveled twice to Minnesota for training, spending a total of 12 days there. He also participated in remote meetings with Minnesota-based personnel while working from Hawaii.
After termination of the plaintiff’s employment, he filed suit against the defendants alleging that his termination violated the whistleblower protections of both the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (“MWA”) and the Hawaii Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 378-62. He alleged that the defendants retaliated against him for reporting suspected illegal conduct, including violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b). The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and denied leave to amend. The plaintiff appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal
The Eighth Circuit agreed, holding that the plaintiff did not qualify for protection under the MWA because it applies only to individuals who “perform services for hire in Minnesota,” and training did not constitute “services for hire.” Additionally, the Eighth Circuit found that the statutory phrase “in Minnesota” requires ongoing physical presence in the state, not 12 days of a total 118‑day employment period spent in training or remote contact with Minnesota‑based staff. According to the Eighth Circuit, “such sparse and sporadic presence is insufficient. His job as a District Sales Manager for Hawaii was in Hawaii, not Minnesota.”
The Eighth Circuit also found that the Minnesota choice‑of‑law contractual provision barred the plaintiff’s whistleblower claim under Hawaii law. Because the Hawaii whistleblower statute did not prohibit waiver and Minnesota strongly favors enforcement of contractual choice‑of‑law provisions, the Eighth Circuit enforced the Minnesota choice‑of‑law provision and affirmed dismissal of the Hawaii whistleblower claim.
Practical Takeaways
- Remote employees who work primarily outside an employer’s home state may fall outside that state’s whistleblower protections, particularly where their in‑state activity is limited and consists only of onboarding or training visits.
- For multi‑state employers, the intersection of remote work locations, in‑state activities and choice‑of‑law provisions can be outcome‑determinative for which employment laws apply.
If you have any questions on issues discussed in or related to this post, please contact:
- Kathryn Jones at (248) 457-7846 or kejones@hallrender.com; or
- Jenna Nakkash at (248) 457-4828 or jnakkash@hallrender.com
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
