[MN] Is sending a preservation of evidence notice protected activity during an ADA retaliation and HR investigation dispute?

MN Employment

TJ, Esq.

17,778 satisfied customers

View context

Solved

Here's the reality: sending that letter right now while you're on paid administrative leave could hurt you, and I need to be honest about why. Your employer is currently investigating you. The stated reason is the recording accusation, but based on what you've told me, that investigation is likely a pretext. When you send a detailed letter laying out all their violations like this, you're giving them ammunition in multiple ways.

First, they can use it to argue you're being insubordinate or failing to cooperate with their investigation by making accusations instead of participating in their process. Second, they can claim you're threatening them or being hostile, which they'll use to justify whatever they decide to do next. Third, they're going to scrutinize every word looking for something they can twist against you. Right now, while you're in their crosshairs, sending a formal accusation letter is like handing them a roadmap of your legal claims before you've even had a chance to preserve evidence properly or get professional guidance.

I understand your sense of justice. That's actually a strength, not a weakness. But there's a difference between standing up for yourself and strategically positioning yourself for what comes next. What you need to do instead is send the preservation of evidence notice I mentioned earlier. That's neutral, professional, and it protects you legally without being confrontational. It says "preserve these documents" without accusing anyone of anything. It's defensive, not offensive.(MN Stat § 181.961)

After your employer responds to the preservation notice or after the investigation concludes, that's when you can decide whether to send a detailed letter outlining violations. At that point, you'll have more information, and you won't be actively under investigation.

EEOC Form 5 (2025). CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

Full Conversation

Can I be fired for sending a preservation of evidence notice to my employer?

Lexi, Chatbot

I understand that you’re concerned about the potential consequences of sending a preservation of evidence notice. Have you already experienced any negative reactions from your employer regarding this notice?

No, I have not sent it.

Lexi, Chatbot

What type of evidence are you trying to preserve, and how does it relate to your employment situation?

Emails, meeting logs, documentation of ghost files, performance documentation, disciplinary action write-ups, and meeting invites. It will prove they retaliated against me after I supplied evidence of retaliation, breached the interactive ADA process, and falsified an ADA accommodation approval.

Lexi, Chatbot

Is there anything else the Employment Lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured, they’ll be able to help with your retaliation concerns.

No.

TJ, Esq.

Hello! My name is TJ and I’m an attorney. Thanks so much for the opportunity to assist you! I understand how important your legal question is, and I’m giving it my full attention. I’ll share my initial thoughts shortly, and I may also ask for a few additional details. That information will help me understand your situation more clearly so I can offer a more complete and helpful answer.

VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

(1) If you don’t hear from me right away, please know I will always get back to you. I may be researching, preparing your answer, or occasionally dealing with a technical issue, so there can be a short wait between messages. However, your message will stay right where it is, and you’ll be notified as soon as I reply. I only stop responding if you ask for a second opinion, since that ends the chat. One quick note: the platform sorts chats by the most recent message I receive, so sending several short messages (instead of one longer message), or sending a check-in message (like “are you there?”) can shift your chat to the bottom of my list. I apologize for that quirk, and I truly appreciate your patience.

(2) This is general legal info only. Unfortunately, I can’t represent you or form an attorney-client relationship. This also means there is no attorney-client privilege or confidentiality.

TJ, Esq.

You can't be fired simply for sending a preservation of evidence notice to your employer. In fact, firing you in response to sending such a notice could itself be illegal retaliation, especially given what you've described. A preservation notice is a legitimate legal tool, and employers know that employees have the right to preserve evidence when they're considering or pursuing legal claims.

That said, I want to understand your situation better. You mentioned retaliation and ADA issues. Are you saying that your employer has already retaliated against you for reporting something (like an ADA violation or something else), and you're now planning to send the preservation notice in response to that retaliation? Or is the retaliation something you're anticipating might happen?

No worries. Thank you for reviewing this. I’m rereading the above so I can correctly answer your question.

Correct. They have already engaged in retaliation and failure to engage in the interactive ADA process/failure to deliver an approved ADA accommodation for an extended period.

Summary of potential legal claims:

Subject: Summary of retaliation, ADA accommodation violations, and administrative leave
Date of incident(s): Removed

Background and ADA non-compliance

Approved accommodation: An ADA accommodation was approved requiring my manager to provide written summaries of all coaching and actionable items from 1-on-1 meetings.

Failure to implement: I reported to HR that my manager was failing to adhere to this accommodation.

Disparate impact/misclassification: I identified an error in an HR email falsely stating I requested a role change for “specific work.” In reality, the move followed a report of a manager making a violent threat, “gun to my head.” Management later cited this move in my performance reviews to justify “restructuring” and isolating me.

Ethical reporting and management response

Ethics meeting: I met with the Ethics Manager to report retaliation, discrimination, and the discovery of “ghost files,” which were 8 files indicating I was being audited/targeted outside of standard procedure.

Hostile HR interaction: During a follow-up with HR, advisors called me “ungrateful” when I requested an update to my documentation. They claimed they had no record of my medical provider’s specific work requests, despite my diagnosis of ADHD, PTSD, and executive dysfunction being on file.

The “ambush” meeting and administrative leave

I attended a meeting intended to discuss the unimplemented ADA accommodation. Instead, HR challenged my need for written communication, claiming ignorance of my memory issues despite prior documentation.

Pretextual allegation: HR accused me of unauthorized recording. I clarified that I was using closed captioning as a memory aid and taking manual notes, not recording audio or transcripts.

Immediate suspension: Following this disagreement, I was placed on indefinite paid administrative leave pending an “internal investigation.” The original issue—the failure to implement my ADA accommodation—was never addressed.

Note: I’m in the state of Minnesota. I work for a bank that is headquartered in Illinois.

TJ, Esq.

Let me make sure I understand the timeline correctly: you have documentation showing your accommodation was approved, you reported non-compliance, you reported retaliation to Ethics, and then you were placed on administrative leave. Is that right?

Also, when you say the HR advisors called you "ungrateful," can you give me a bit more context about what led to that comment? I'd like to understand whether they were directly responding to you asking for documentation updates, or if there was something else happening in that conversation.

I got an approved ADA accommodation to be able to get official training and collaborate with peers without penalization.

About a week later, my manager at the time said in a meeting, “If I put a gun to your head, what are some things that you think you could improve on?” This happened toward the end of my training meeting.

I then reported to HR that my manager had threatened to put a gun to my head, and that the proximate timing between having an ADA accommodation approved and having a rebuttal to a disciplinary action that the manager had written seemed really interesting, and I did not appreciate the threat.

I was then placed on paid administrative leave.

I received a phone call from HR asking if I could continue to work with my last boss. I told them I could put my feelings aside, enjoyed working regulatory and executive complaints, and would like to stay in my job. I said I could put my feelings aside.

I was informed that the director of the department created a brand-new role that would allow me to only work internal complaints and only work complaints about promotion codes. They asked what my opinion was, and I shared that I was open to it; however, I really enjoyed the role I already had.

HR used the ADA accommodation email format saying that they reviewed my request to get formal training and be able to collaborate with peers and that, upon their review, they approved my request. They then postulated verbiage to say that they approved my request to work only promotion code complaints.

I believe HR was referring to the fact that it appeared I was ungrateful for their assistance after I reported the threat my last manager made. I think they meant I was ungrateful because I was bringing up the postulated ADA accommodation verbiage later and making a big deal about it.

At that point, I shared that the verbiage that was populated, which I have proof from the director himself on documentation showing he said it, was purposely put me in the role. As a result of that falsified verbiage, any performance review I had after introduced that same verbiage to paint me in a way that appeared to make me seem like I was an incapable employee who could not do casework, when that is not in fact the case.

Your understanding of the timeline regarding me being placed on administrative leave is correct.

They are now upset because I keep referring back to what they did previously and the impact it’s had.

TJ, Esq.

Hey, I'm glad you're providing this additional context!

Okay, here's what I'm seeing. You reported a manager for making a threatening statement using the phrase "gun to your head." That's a serious comment, and you had every right to report it. The timing is critical here: you had just gotten an ADA accommodation approved, and then this threat happened almost immediately after. That proximity matters legally because it can show retaliation.

What happened next is where things get really problematic for your employer. After you reported the threat, HR placed you on administrative leave, and then they sent you an email using the ADA accommodation format. But here's the problem: they didn't actually approve your original accommodation request. Instead, they created a new role and tried to pass off their creation as an approval of something you never requested. That's a big deal. They essentially took language from a legitimate ADA accommodation process and used it to describe a completely different job transfer that conveniently moved you away from your original role. Then that falsified accommodation description got repeated in your performance reviews to make you look incompetent in a role you never asked for and weren't trained to handle.

So now you've got multiple legal issues stacked on top of each other. First, you reported what could be considered a threatening statement from your manager. Second, your employer responded by putting you on leave. Third, they manipulated the ADA accommodation process by misrepresenting a job transfer as an accommodation approval. Fourth, they used that false documentation to justify poor performance evaluations in a role you were set up to fail in. And now, a year later, they're upset that you keep bringing up what they did to you. That's not ingratitude on your part. That's you documenting a pattern of retaliation and misconduct.

Here's how I'd suggest you move forward:

Stop all informal complaints to HR and document everything going forward in writing (emails only, no verbal conversations).
Send a formal preservation of evidence notice to HR requesting that they preserve all documents related to your ADA accommodation, the threat report, the administrative leave, the HR email, and any performance reviews that reference the falsified accommodation language.
Gather copies of everything you can access: the original ADA accommodation approval, the threat report you filed, the HR email, the director's communications showing he admitted to the falsified verbiage, and all performance reviews that cite the fake accommodation.
Consult with an employment attorney who handles ADA and retaliation claims, because what you're describing could support claims for ADA discrimination, retaliation for reporting the threat, and potentially even fraudulent misrepresentation in the accommodation process.

Did I completely answer your question about this situation, or do you need clarification on any of these points? Feel free to ask follow-up questions.

Yes, you fully understand the timeline.

Would bringing up the violations in writing to HR change the bank’s likelihood to fire me, given I filed a report of ghost files and shared the ADA accommodation failure to implement for an extended period?

Example:

“To whom it may concern, my records indicate you violated:

Whistleblower protections in the ADA accommodation email that indicates I requested to move roles as a cover for a report of a physical threat, ‘if I put a gun to your head,’ made by a prior manager. There is no medical documentation to prove I requested the move.
Failure to provide employee with personnel file is a violation of Minnesota state statute. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.961, employer must supply within 14 days if located outside of Minnesota. Employer provided me with a PDF of my mid-year performance review, and I immediately replied indicating it was cut off and asked if they could send a full copy, as it was cut off. They never replied. Violation of Minnesota state statute 181.961 Subd. 2(b).

The bank was notified of failure to adhere to the approved ADA accommodation to get coaching items discussed in meetings in writing via a follow-up email from manager. HR met with manager and advised and postulated verbiage following meeting with supervisor to make it appear it was being done all along in writing, and then omitted that coaching was to be summarized in email summary. After HR met with supervisor about the ADA accommodation delivery issue, manager continued to refuse to deliver the accommodation to the employee.”

Would sending something like this now while on paid administrative leave hurt me more?

I am genuinely asking. I’m a little black and white in that I have a very high sense of justice, and I’ve consistently found it hard to stick to the “keep your head down” mantra when I see explicit behaviors as such.

You may have more of a level head in it all, given the fact...

TJ, Esq.

Did I completely answer your question about whether sending that letter now would hurt you, or do you need clarification on any of this? What other concerns do you have?

Yes, this helps. I appreciate your candor. I would much rather someone slap me with reality than pander.

I’ll move to send the preservation letter and hold on in the interim while I await final outcomes from this “witch hunt.” The good news, though, is I’m smart, too much for my own good in some regard to be fair, but I may or may not have procedures they have outlining record retention for the bank. I’ll plead the 5th, though, on that.

So even if they were to “play a game” to erase stuff, their justification would be quickly smited in a hypothetical where I may or may not have a copy of the official record retention policy. Again, I’ll plead the 5th.

Question: Do you support me sending an email to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) and citing that the bank breached Minn. Stat. § 181.961 after I shared the performance review PDF was cut off and asked them to send a complete copy?

Would this make the bank act quicker in adhering to my records request?

Note: I met with an attorney who wanted my full employee file, all performance reviews/write-ups, and evidence of me reporting bank promotion code fraud. This could help me get evidence that much quicker so I can maximize consults.

Question: Is there a statute of limitations on this in Minnesota to act and sue? This relates to the falsified ADA accommodation by the bank to cover for a threat made by their manager.

TJ, Esq.

Good to hear you're thinking strategically. Let me address both of your questions.

On the personnel file issue: Filing a complaint with the Department of Labor and Industry could absolutely accelerate things, but I want you to understand the trade-off. When you file a complaint with DLI, you're essentially putting the bank on notice that you're escalating beyond internal channels. That's not inherently bad, but combined with the preservation letter and while you're on administrative leave under investigation, it signals to your employer that you're building a legal case. They'll know exactly what you're doing. That said, DLI has real enforcement power, and the bank knows that. A complaint could light a fire under them to produce those documents because they don't want a state agency involved. The question is whether accelerating the document production is worth tipping your hand that you're serious about external complaints. Given that you've already met with an attorney who wants those exact documents, I'd say it's probably worth it. You need those materials to maximize your consultation time anyway.

On the statute of limitations: For ADA retaliation claims, you generally have 180 days to file a charge with the EEOC before you can file a lawsuit. However, that clock started ticking when the retaliation occurred, not when you discovered it was retaliatory. The falsified accommodation email is the smoking gun, but that's also when the retaliation arguably crystallized. You're now past that 180-day window for that specific incident. This doesn't mean you have no claims, but it means timing matters enormously and the window for certain remedies may have closed. This is exactly why talking to that attorney is critical.

Good point. I appreciate the devil’s advocacy.

Smoking gun: Falsified ADA accommodation showing I “requested to move to this role.”

End-of-year review: It mentioned it, and I raised my hand about that and leveraged the smoking gun as the pretext to the “why” it is in the bank’s best interest to update the verbiage in the EOY review.

Question: Can the smoking gun be “admissible” again, given it has everything to do with my request to overturn the end-of-year review verbiage, and given that I mentioned the concern of fraud to HR in meetings multiple times, and mentioned it in later meetings?

I made mentions of the smoking gun, and less than 24 hours later, I was on administrative leave.

TJ, Esq.

Yes, that smoking gun is admissible. You reported it multiple times in December and early January, and then got put on leave within 24 hours of escalating it. That sequence proves retaliation and makes the document even stronger evidence.

I think that’s all I have at this point. I’ll send the notice and then chill in the background for a bit while I wait for them to cut me off payroll or take me back with parameters/PIP.

I appreciate your patience, time, and advice. This has been eye-opening. You’re by far more helpful than the firm I had a consult with, who was very “gray”/wishy-washy.

To be fair, the firm just wanted me to supply evidence/facts first before committing to anything, which I can understand, given I work caseloads for regulatory bank complaints. But I digress. Anyway, I hope you have a great rest of your week.

TJ, Esq.

I really appreciate that. You've got a solid head on your shoulders and you're approaching this the right way (strategically and methodically. Send that preservation notice, keep your head down, and document everything that happens next. You've already done the hard part by identifying the pattern and the violations.

Those attorneys will come around once you have all your documentation in order. They're being cautious, which honestly isn't the worst thing. But you've got this.

Take care of yourself, and feel free to reach out if anything changes or if you have questions as things unfold. Good luck with everything.

TJ, Esq.

17,778 satisfied customers

Welcome! Have a similar question?

By messaging AskALawyer, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.

Ray

Lawyer

4.73 (66,079)

What should I do if HR investigates my hostile work environment claim while my EEO retaliation complaint is pending?

Answered 2 days ago

Richard

4.26 (76,546)

[FL] Is there a wrongful termination claim under at-will employment?

Answered 6 days ago

Legal Eagle

Attorney

4.79 (133,377)

[FL] Can I sue for unpaid equity, retaliation, and unauthorized use of my likeness after revocation?

Answered 7 days ago

Disclaimer

By messaging AskaLawyer.com, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy.

The information provided on AskaLawyer.com is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the information presented, we make no guarantees regarding its completeness or applicability to your specific circumstances.

Use of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and AskaLawyer.com or any of its attorneys. Communications through this website, including any responses from attorneys, are not privileged or confidential. For advice tailored to your individual situation, we recommend consulting a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

AskaLawyer.com disclaims any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this site. We are not responsible for any third-party content that may be accessed through this website. Reliance on any information provided herein is solely at your own risk.