the like — which do not implicate any violation of the law. And Plaintiff makes much to do about the alleged office romances between Stifel brokers. As was the case with her SOX claim, Plaintiffs complaints are not protected under the MWA just because Plaintiff finds her co-workers’ activities to be disturbing or troublesome. See Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 902 (Minn.1998) (dismissing firefighters’ whistleblower claims and finding that the reports that officers attended fire calls while intoxicated was not protected activity because “[w]hile we find such conduct reprehensible, if in fact it did occur, we can find no statute or rule that is violated by such conduct”); Yakubek v. Westbrooke Patio Homes Assoc., No. 97-506, 1997 WL 613667, at *4 (Minn.Ct.App. Oct. 7, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Nordling v. N. States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d
holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims holding that raising a complaint about a violation of an internal policy is not considered protected activity holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor holding that employees reports of marijuana smoking in violation of the employ ers drug policy was not protected activity under the mwa and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of her claims