Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

Background

Jan Kuklenski worked for Medtronic USA, Inc. for many years and became Director of Corporate Strategic Alliances in 2018. Her work focused largely on Medtronic’s value-based healthcare partnerships. After a restructuring in late 2020 and early 2021, she became Director of Enterprise Accounts and was expected to take on commercial responsibilities, including work involving contracting and account growth.

Kuklenski raised concerns that a new compensation plan involving sales commissions conflicted with Medtronic’s agreements with its value-based healthcare partners. She reported those concerns to Medtronic managers, senior personnel, and the compliance department. Shortly afterward, she underwent ear surgery and began medical leave on June 7, 2021. Medtronic later filled her position while she remained on leave and terminated her employment on December 8, 2021.

Kuklenski asserted age-discrimination claims and a disability-discrimination claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, along with a retaliation claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act. An earlier ruling dismissed two other claims, leaving the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Minnesota Whistleblower Act claims. Kuklenski moved for partial summary judgment on her disability-discrimination claim. Medtronic moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims.

Minnesota Human Rights Act claims

The court interpreted the Minnesota Human Rights Act’s definition of “employee,” which covers an individual who “resides or works in” Minnesota. The court held that “works in” Minnesota requires at least some physical presence within Minnesota’s geographic boundaries. Communications with Minnesota employees, Minnesota-based supervisors, and remote work connected to Minnesota were not enough by themselves.

Kuklenski admitted that she did not reside in Minnesota. The undisputed evidence showed that she had not been physically present in Minnesota for work after February 2020. Although she had previously traveled to Minnesota for work, the court held that past travel was not enough because the statute uses the present tense and protects people who reside or work in Minnesota when the alleged violation occurs. The court concluded that a reasonable juror could not find that Kuklenski was an employee protected by the Minnesota Human Rights Act when the alleged discrimination occurred.

The court also stated that, even if Kuklenski were protected by the Act, her disparate-treatment age claim would fail because Medtronic had a nondiscriminatory reason for filling her position—her six-month leave—and no reasonable juror could find that reason was a pretext for age discrimination. The court stated that Kuklenski waived her disparate-impact age claim by failing to address it in her briefing and had not identified the specific employment practices allegedly causing statistical disparities. The court did not resolve the disability claim on those alternative grounds because it was unnecessary after finding that Kuklenski was not a protected employee under the Act.

Minnesota Whistleblower Act claim

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act defines an employee as a person who performs services for hire in Minnesota for an employer. Applying the same physical-presence analysis, the court held that Kuklenski’s work in Minnesota before February 2020 was insufficient because she had stopped performing services there more than a year before reporting her concerns about the compensation structure.

The court further stated that, even if Kuklenski were protected by the Whistleblower Act, her claim would fail for additional reasons. The facts she reported did not constitute a breach of contract, and the timing between her report and the termination—measured from early June to early September—was not enough by itself to support an inference of retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted Medtronic USA, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, denied Jan Kuklenski’s motion for partial summary judgment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Eric C. Tostrud directed that judgment be entered.