We recognize that the whistleblower statute does not require an employer to be ignorant of a suspected violation before an employee makes a report. See Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a). However, in view of the undisputed evidence that Rothmeier knew Rahn already was aware of the SEC registration issue, Rothmeier’s mere mention of that issue to Rahn did not constitute a “report.” Although approximately 19 months later Rothmeier reported the suspected violation to the SEC, that report occurred after his termination and could not have been a basis for his discharge. Rothmeier challenges the district court’s conclusion that his whistleblower claim failed as a matter of law because his claim did not implicate public policy. See Vonch v. Carlson Cos., 439 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Minn.App. 1989) (<HOLDING>), review denied (July 12, 1989). Rothmeier’s
holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy holding that there was no violation of a clear mandate of public policy where an employee was discharged for attempting to curtail the misuse of public tax revenues holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy