Fuller v. Honeywell International Inc.

Background

Christopher C. Fuller worked for Honeywell International as an engineer. Beginning in July 2022, he reported to federal officials that Honeywell was developing weapons-related technology in ways that evaded federal oversight and compromised national defense. The complaint said Fuller contacted, among others, a member of Representative Dean Phillips’s staff, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, State Department investigators, Bureau of Industry and Security investigators, and a Department of Homeland Security investigator.

Beginning in August 2023, Fuller experienced several employment-related actions. He received a negative performance review, was investigated for contacting a vendor and downloading Honeywell data to a personal device, was placed on a performance improvement plan, lost certain clearance and controlled-data authority, and was placed on administrative leave. He resigned effective January 1, 2024. He alleged that these actions were retaliation for his reports and that Honeywell withheld a $175,000 bonus for the same reason.

Claims and Rule 12(b)(6) standard

Fuller asserted a claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and alleged constructive discharge. Honeywell moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. On such a motion, the court considers the complaint’s allegations, accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and does not consider new facts supplied through briefs, affidavits, or exhibits.

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects an employee who, in good faith, reports an actual, suspected, or planned violation of federal or state law, or participates in an investigation at a public body’s request. The court explained that a whistleblower claim requires plausible allegations that the employee engaged in protected conduct, the employer took prohibited action, and the protected conduct caused that action.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege the first or third elements of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim. Although Fuller described his concerns as serious, dangerous, and related to public safety and national defense, the complaint did not identify any federal or state law that Honeywell allegedly violated or connect the substance of his reports to a violation of law.

The court also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege causation. It did not allege that Honeywell, particularly the employees who took the challenged actions, knew about Fuller’s reports before those actions occurred. The court additionally noted that the first identified employment action occurred about thirteen months after Fuller’s initial report, which was too long to support causation based only on timing.

The court explained that constructive discharge is not an independent cause of action. Instead, constructive discharge is a doctrine that treats a resignation caused by objectively intolerable working conditions as a formal discharge when another statute or legal claim makes the discharge unlawful. The court also stated that the employment actions described in the complaint, including a performance improvement plan and administrative leave, did not ordinarily establish intolerable working conditions. In any event, Fuller did not need to prove constructive discharge to allege a prohibited employment action under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Disposition

The court granted Honeywell’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Fuller might be able to correct the Minnesota Whistleblower Act allegations in an amended complaint. The order allowed Fuller to file an amended complaint by August 16, 2024. If he did not do so, the original complaint would be dismissed with prejudice and final judgment would be entered. Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the order on July 29, 2024.