N.D.C.C. ch. 50-25.1, and possible criminal violations. She claims that, after she reported the possible abuse, she was subjected to a “hostile” work environment and was ultimately terminated in retaliation for making the reports. [¶ 31] The trial court analyzed Dahl-berg’s retaliation claim under the burden-shifting framework for federal discrimination claims announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and its progeny. The trial court said Dahlberg’s reports involved alleged lack of supervision by Luther Hall employees, which resulted in resident-on-resident sexual abuse, but the court decided Dahlberg had no legal duty to report the alleged “inadequate supervision.” The court decided Dahlberg failed to show th 793, 795 (N.D.1987) (<HOLDING>). Compare Jose, 1999 ND 175, ¶ 21, 599 N.W.2d
recognizing wrongful discharge claim where employer allegedly discharged employee for exercising right to receive workers compensation benefits holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for honoring subpoena and informing employer she was prepared to testify contrary to employers interest in criminal proceeding holding public employer may execute reduction in force resulting in elimination of position of employee receiving workers compensation disability benefits holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees