A federal appeals court has reinstated a retaliation claim filed by a worker who was terminated after he complained to a state agency about being asked to fudge product quality test results.

Douglas James Sellner was a lab quality technician at a Springfield, Minnesota, facility operated by Long Grove, Illinois-based MAT Holdings, Inc., according to Thursday’s ruling by the 8yh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Douglas James Sellner v. MAT Holdings Inc; Midwest Air Technologies Inc.; MAT Industries L.L.C.; Sanborn Manufacturing Co.

On March 29, 2012, the facility’s general manager, Alan D. Stark, told Mr. Sellner to present data on a pump that was set to be added to Sears Roebuck & Co.’s product line. The pump had serious problems with oil leakage during testing, according to the ruling.

After a lab manager said Mr. Sellner’s data could not be used in a report to the Chicago-based retailer, Mr. Stark allegedly told Mr. Sellner “to produce a report showing no major issues” with the pump.

When Mr. Sellner said no units performed without major issues, Mr. Stark replied, “Well, if you don’t do this we’re all going to be on the street — no, you’re going to be on the street.”

When Mr. Sellner told Mr. Stark he would not falsify any testing data and his request was illegal, Mr. Stark responded he should “get creative with (his) documentation.”

The next day, Mr. Sellner filed a report on the issue with the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. He was at the time in line to receive a promotion and pay increase. Instead, he was terminated on April 26, 2012, after an investigation by MAT’s director of human resources of on-site personnel issues at the facility, during which allegations were made about Mr. Sellner’s workplace behavior.

Mr. Sellner filed suit against MAT for wrongful termination under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis granted MAT summary judgment dismissing the claim.

On appeal, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit reinstated the charge. Mr. Stark’s threat that Mr. Sellner was “going to be on the street” if he was not creative with documentation is “direct evidence of retaliation,” said the ruling.

“Stark’s comment provides a specific link between Sellner’s protected conduct and his termination,” the ruling said, in remanding the case for further proceedings.