The Eighth Circuit ruled that a remote worker in Hawaii could not bring whistleblower claims under either Minnesota’s or Hawaii’s whistleblower protection acts—finding he lacked sufficient physical presence in Minnesota to qualify as an employee under that state’s law, and had contractually waived his right to sue under Hawaii law by agreeing to a Minnesota choice-of-law provision in his employment agreement.
The Eighth Circuit ruled that a remote worker in Hawaii could not bring whistleblower claims under either Minnesota’s or Hawaii’s whistleblower protection acts—finding he lacked sufficient physical presence in Minnesota to qualify as an employee under that state’s law, and had contractually waived his right to sue under Hawaii law by agreeing to a Minnesota choice-of-law provision in his employment agreement.
