Background
Laurissa Wredberg worked for Canvas Health as an Abuse Response Services Advocate and qualified as a sexual assault counselor under Minnesota law. She alleged that her supervisors repeatedly directed her to provide information about a minor client who had an arrest warrant related to a runaway probation violation. The supervisors said the information would be shared with county personnel and could ultimately lead to the client’s incarceration.
Wredberg refused, citing the sexual-assault-counselor privilege in Minnesota Statutes section 595.02, subdivision 1(k). She alleged that Canvas terminated her after her refusals. She sued under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and asserted a common-law wrongful-discharge claim. The district court dismissed both claims under Rule 12.02(e), and the court of appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed. The sexual-assault-counselor privilege does not impose a freestanding ban on all nonconsensual disclosures of victim information. Rather, it is an evidentiary privilege that applies in an action or proceeding, civil or criminal, in court or before a person with authority to receive evidence. It may cover records and other information, not only oral testimony, but remains confined to that setting.
Wredberg alleged only that Canvas ordered her to disclose information to supervisors; she did not allege that the requested disclosure was in court or before a person authorized to receive evidence. Her concern that the information might later be used in a criminal proceeding did not establish an actual violation of the privilege. Because both claims rested on the asserted violation of that privilege, dismissal was proper. The court did not decide whether the Whistleblower Act’s “objective basis in fact to believe” standard may require less than an actual legal violation in other cases.
Key Takeaways
- Minnesota’s sexual-assault-counselor privilege applies to disclosures in qualifying actions or proceedings, not workplace communications generally.
- The privilege covers more than testimony and can protect records and other information in a qualifying proceeding.
- A wrongful-discharge claim under Phipps requires a refusal to violate the law; the pleaded facts did not show such a violation here.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a firm line between statutory evidentiary privileges and broader professional or ethical confidentiality duties. Counsel evaluating retaliation claims should identify a legal duty that actually governs the requested conduct, rather than relying solely on an evidentiary privilege.
The court noted that broader protections for sexual-assault-counselor communications may be sound policy, but said creation of such protections is for the Legislature.