Law enforcement and the DA in MSP probably didn't even know about until they read the paper a few days ago. You can bet they're spooling up now, just in case.

They do not need the victim's concurrence to prosecute, although in a case like this they would clearly need her testimony. Also they may choose to not prosecute a good case if it will put the victim in the spotlight (ie public testimony), and the victim doesn't want to go there.

Also... a plaintiff's attorney may advise a victim to NOT push for criminal charges. The lawyer wants money, not justice, and depending on the potential source(s) of money, a convicted perp may be less lucrative. The perp may wind up unemployed, may spend all his money on criminal defense, and liability insurance typically won't cover a deliberate act (a conviction proves it's deliberate). You'd be amazed at what can be passed off as "unintentional" by both plaintiff and defendant in order to access the insurance payout... about the only thing that can get the insurance company off the hook is a criminal conviction (maybe not even then).

But if the plaintiff is going for the employer's pockets only, then a conviction would seem to help prove that the company didn't protect the plaintiff from a dangerous situation. Might see charges yet.