Coubal v. Power Systems AHS, LLC

Background

Derek Coubal worked as a customer service sales representative for Power Systems AHS, LLC, from 2001 until his termination in September 2020. His duties included processing customer orders and requests, recommending products, reviewing orders, and supporting other employees. Some duties required him to be physically present, including serving walk-in customers, pulling warehouse items for rush orders, examining returned items, checking inventory, and helping with product assembly and shipping.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Coubal and three other customer service representatives worked remotely, while two representatives and their supervisor continued working at the Chanhassen facility. Coubal still came to the office on Tuesdays for certain customer orders, and other employees performed some in-person tasks for him while he worked remotely.

In July 2020, Power Systems directed employees to return to in-person work unless there was a specific reason to continue working from home. The company cited increased orders, the resignation of an employee, and the need to have enough customer service representatives available at the facility. Coubal refused to return, asserting that Minnesota executive orders required employees already working from home to continue doing so. He also complained about employees not wearing masks or maintaining physical distance.

Power Systems continued directing Coubal to return to the workplace. Coubal remained absent, did not return after further warnings, and was terminated for job abandonment on September 30, 2020. Coubal then sued under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, claiming that Power Systems placed him on unpaid leave and fired him for reporting violations of the executive orders and refusing to violate them.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Coubal, the nonmoving party.

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects an employee who, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of law. It also protects an employee who refuses an employer’s order when the employee has an objective factual basis for believing that the order violates state or federal law and tells the employer that the order is being refused for that reason.

Court’s analysis

The court first rejected Coubal’s argument that his reports were protected. Coubal reported that, because he was already working from home, the executive orders required him to remain at home. The court concluded that the orders did not prohibit a critical-sector employer from requiring an employee to return to the workplace to perform duties that could not be done remotely. The court noted that the orders expressly allowed critical-sector workers to report to a workplace for work that could not be performed through remote or virtual work.

The court also concluded that Coubal’s report was not protected to the extent he claimed he could perform all of his duties from home. Coubal had worked as a customer service sales representative for 19 years and knew that some of his duties required him to be at the facility. The court held that the undisputed evidence showed that this assertion was knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.

The court separately held that Coubal did not have an objective factual basis for believing that returning to the workplace violated the executive orders. His earlier remote-work experience did not establish that he could work entirely from home because he had continued performing some duties at the office and other employees had handled other in-person tasks. The court also found that business and staffing conditions had changed, and that Coubal knew some of his duties could not be performed remotely. His communications with the state work-from-home helpline did not establish an objective factual basis because he contacted the helpline after refusing to return and did not tell its staff that he could not perform all of his duties from home.

Because Coubal did not show protected conduct, the court held that he could not establish the required initial case for whistleblower retaliation. The court further held that, even if Coubal had engaged in protected conduct, the evidence did not show a causal connection between that conduct and his termination. Power Systems spent about two months trying to have him return to work, and Coubal continued refusing to report, did not respond to the company’s final warning, and allowed a coworker to collect his belongings.

Finally, the court held that Power Systems had offered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination: job abandonment. Coubal did not show that this explanation was a pretext, meaning a false reason used to conceal retaliation. The court rejected his arguments that the company had shifted its explanation, improperly documented his employment issues, or failed to follow its job-abandonment policy.

Disposition

The court granted Power Systems AHS, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the Complaint. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.