The Minnesota Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Laurissa Wredberg against her former employer, Canvas Health, Inc. The court ruled that Wredberg did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims that she was wrongfully terminated for refusing to disclose confidential information about a sexual assault victim.
This ruling, filed on August 12, 2026, affects not only Wredberg but also sets a precedent for how sexual assault counselors may navigate their obligations under state law regarding confidentiality and employer directives. The case highlights the balance between protecting victim privacy and the responsibilities of counselors in their professional roles.
Background
Laurissa Wredberg was employed as a sexual assault counselor at Canvas Health, a nonprofit organization that provides mental health services. Wredberg's role qualified her for protections under Minnesota's sexual-assault-counselor privilege, which prohibits counselors from disclosing information about victims without their consent.
The dispute arose when Wredberg's supervisors allegedly pressured her to reveal the whereabouts of a minor client, claiming that this information was needed for legal proceedings against the victim. Wredberg refused to comply, citing her ethical and legal obligations to protect the victim's confidentiality. Following her refusal, Wredberg was terminated from her position, leading her to file a lawsuit against Canvas Health.
The Ruling
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of Wredberg's claims under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and for wrongful discharge. The court found that Wredberg did not demonstrate that disclosing the victim's information to her supervisors would violate the sexual-assault-counselor privilege. The court stated, "Wredberg has not alleged that she was ordered to disclose information 'in court or before any person who has authority to receive evidence.'"
The ruling emphasized that the sexual-assault-counselor privilege applies only in the context of legal proceedings and does not extend to workplace communications. The court's decision clarified that the privilege is limited to situations where a counselor is compelled to disclose information in a court or similar setting.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for sexual assault counselors in Minnesota and potentially beyond. It reinforces the legal understanding that while counselors have a duty to protect victim confidentiality, this duty is framed within specific legal contexts. Counselors may still face pressure from employers, but the court's decision limits the scope of protections available under the whistleblower laws when the alleged violation of privilege does not occur in a legal proceeding.
Furthermore, this case may influence future interpretations of the sexual-assault-counselor privilege and whistleblower protections, as it sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity of context when evaluating claims of wrongful termination related to confidentiality obligations.
What's Next
Wredberg's case is now concluded at the state Supreme Court level, and there are no indications of plans for an appeal. However, this ruling may lead to further discussions and potential legislative changes regarding the rights and protections of sexual assault counselors and their clients in Minnesota.