F.Supp. 1424, 1426 & 1427 n. 3 (S.D.Fla.1993). The district court correctly determined that “the statute of limitations was tolled on Rothmeier’s whistleblower claim while the age discrimination claim was pending in federal court.” B. Prima facie case. Rothmeier failed to establish the first element of a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge because the record contains no evidence that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct. See Hubbard, 330 N.W.2d at 444. Whether a plaintiff made a report in “good faith” is a question of fact. McDonald v. Stonebraker, 255 N.W.2d 827, 831 (Minn.1977). Nevertheless, this court may determine as a matter of law that certain conduct does not constitute a “report.” See Michaelson v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 474 N.W.2d 174, 180 (Minn.App.1991) (<HOLDING>), ajfd, 479 N.W.2d 58 (Minn.1992). Rothmeier
recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension holding that appellant failed to state a claim of retaliatory discharge where the record showed he merely gave his supervisor feedback and did not report alleged violations to any outside authority