He reported his employer, got fired, and neither state's whistleblower law could protect him
A federal appeals court has ruled that a remote employee who reported alleged anti-kickback violations fell outside the reach of two states' whistleblower laws.
The decision, handed down on March 26, 2026, by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, dealt a blow to Krishnan Ghosh, a Hawaii-based sales manager who claimed he was fired by a subsidiary of Abbott Laboratories after flagging what he believed were violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The ruling carries real implications for HR teams managing employees across state lines – particularly when it comes to whistleblower protections and the fine print in employment agreements.
Ghosh entered into a National Employment Agreement with Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a medical device company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, in early February 2023. He was hired as District Sales Manager for Hawaii but was first required to complete a mandatory certification and training program before performing clinical and commercial services in his territory. Over the following months, he traveled to Minnesota twice, spending a combined 12 days in the state visiting hospitals, interacting with physicians, and performing case observations. From Hawaii, he participated in remote meetings with CSI's Minnesota-based staff. In April 2023, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. acquired CSI, which became a wholly-owned subsidiary.
According to court documents, Ghosh alleged that between March and early May 2023, he discovered and reported illegal conduct by CSI in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Shortly after completing his training, CSI terminated him. The company later said it fired him for conduct-related reasons, including claims that he aided a competitor over his own employer and engaged in demeaning and disrespectful behavior.
Ghosh filed suit in Minnesota under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and later added a claim under the Hawaii Whistleblowers' Protection Act. What followed was a messy procedural path – multiple complaints, a voluntary dismissal, a refiled lawsuit, and repeated motions to amend – that the court described as a long and tortured history.
On the merits, the Eighth Circuit found that Ghosh did not qualify as an employee under Minnesota's whistleblower statute. That law protects individuals who perform services for hire in Minnesota. The court determined that training activities like case observations, physician visits, and on-site sessions did not amount to commercial services. It also held that 12 days in the state over a span of several months did not meet the statute's requirement of ongoing physical presence in Minnesota, particularly when Ghosh's actual job was based entirely in Hawaii.
The Hawaii claim fared no better. The employment agreement included a choice-of-law clause directing that the agreement and the rights of the parties would be governed by the laws of Minnesota. The court found that this language effectively waived Ghosh's ability to bring a whistleblower claim under Hawaii law. It noted that the Hawaii legislature, unlike in some other statutes, had not made its whistleblower protections non-waivable. The court also observed that Ghosh had initially chosen to pursue the Minnesota statute and only pivoted to the Hawaii claim after it became clear that path was failing.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims and affirmed the denial of Ghosh's motion to file what would have been his fifth pleading, finding the proposed amendments would not have saved the case.
For HR professionals, the takeaway is pointed. Remote employees working across state lines may not automatically be covered by the whistleblower protections of the state where their employer is headquartered – especially if their presence in that state is limited to training. At the same time, a broadly worded choice-of-law provision in an employment agreement can cut off access to protections in the employee's home state. As companies continue to operate with geographically dispersed workforces, this decision is a reminder that the language in employment contracts matters – and that gaps in multi-state whistleblower coverage are very real.
