Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

Background

Jan Kuklenski worked for Medtronic USA, Inc. beginning in 1999 and eventually became Director of Corporate Strategic Alliances. She worked on Medtronic’s value-based healthcare partnerships with four hospital systems. After a restructuring in late 2020 and early 2021, her role changed to Director of Enterprise Accounts, with expected commercial responsibilities and a compensation plan that included sales commissions.

Kuklenski objected to the new compensation structure. She reported to Medtronic personnel, including its compliance department, that the compensation plan conflicted with agreements governing the value-based healthcare partnerships. Medtronic concluded that the new compensation model was legal and would proceed.

In June 2021, Kuklenski underwent ear surgery and began medical leave. She extended her leave several times. In September 2021, Medtronic told her it could no longer hold her position open, later filled the position internally, and terminated her on December 8, 2021, when she logged into work and had no position to return to.

Kuklenski asserted age-discrimination and disability-discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and a retaliation claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. Counts IV and V had previously been dismissed, leaving the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims at issue in this order. Both parties moved for summary judgment, a procedure under which a court enters judgment when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law. Kuklenski sought partial summary judgment on her disability-discrimination claim, while Medtronic sought summary judgment on all remaining claims.

Minnesota Human Rights Act

The Minnesota Human Rights Act defines an employee as an individual employed by an employer who “resides or works in this state.” Kuklenski admitted that she did not reside in Minnesota. She argued that she worked in Minnesota because her supervisors and many coworkers were there, she frequently communicated with them, and she had previously traveled to Minnesota for work.

The court interpreted “works in this state” to require at least some physical presence within Minnesota. It reasoned that the statutory language refers to performing job duties within Minnesota’s geographic boundaries. The court also relied on the statute’s present-tense wording, its policy of protecting persons in Minnesota, and the general presumption that state statutes do not apply outside the state’s borders.

Kuklenski had not been physically present in Minnesota for work after February 2020. She worked remotely from Michigan, California, and Illinois through her termination in December 2021. The court held that her communications with Minnesota employees and supervisors did not satisfy the physical-presence requirement. Her earlier Minnesota work visits also did not establish protection because they ended roughly a year before the alleged discrimination. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could not find that she was an employee protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Minnesota Whistleblower Act

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act defines an employee as a person who performs services for hire in Minnesota for an employer. The court applied its physical-presence analysis under the Minnesota Human Rights Act to this language as well. Because Kuklenski stopped performing services in Minnesota in February 2020 and reported the compensation issue more than a year later, the court held that a reasonable juror could not find that she was an employee protected by the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Alternative grounds

The court stated that, even if Kuklenski were protected by the two Minnesota statutes, additional grounds would defeat several claims. For her disparate-treatment age-discrimination claim, the court found that Medtronic had a nondiscriminatory reason for filling her position—her six-month leave of absence—and that a reasonable juror could not find this reason was a pretext for age discrimination.

Kuklenski waived her disparate-impact age-discrimination claim by failing to address it in her briefing. The court also stated that she had not identified specific employment practices responsible for the alleged statistical disparities.

The court identified two additional problems with the whistleblower claim. First, the facts Kuklenski reported did not amount to a breach of contract. Second, the timing between her report and the termination decision was not enough by itself to support an inference of retaliation. The court described the disability-discrimination claim as a closer issue but did not need to decide its merits because Kuklenski was not an employee protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Disposition

The court granted Medtronic USA, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. It denied Kuklenski’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court dismissed the action with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.