Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc.

635 F.Supp.3d 726

Jan KUKLENSKI, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC USA, INC., Defendant.

File No. 22-cv-438 (ECT/JFD)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Signed October 12, 2022

Pamela M. Spera and Clayton D. Halunen, Halunen Law, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff Jan Kuklenski.

Marko J. Mrkonich, Claire B. Deason, and Daniel Bihrle, Littler Mendelson, PC, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Medtronic USA, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER

Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Jan Kuklenski is a Michigan citizen who worked for Minnesota-based Medtronic USA, Inc. In this suit, Kuklenski alleges that Medtronic unlawfully terminated her employment after she took medical leave. She asserts statutory claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and a promissory estoppel claim under unspecified state common law.¹

Medtronic seeks dismissal of the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Medtronic's motion will be granted in part under Rule 12(b)(6). Difficult legal and factual questions remain regarding whether Kuklenski has statutory standing to assert a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; the better answer at this early stage is to allow those claims to proceed. The motion also will be denied with respect to Kuklenski's claim under the Minnesota Whistleblower Act because Kuklenski alleges facts plausibly showing that she engaged in protected activity, the only element Medtronic challenges. The motion will be granted as to Kuklenski's claims under the Family Medical Leave Act and her promissory estoppel claim. Kuklenski has failed to allege facts plausibly showing essential elements of these two claims.

I²

Kuklenski is a long-time Medtronic employee. Kuklenski began her Medtronic employment in 1999 as a Cardiovascular Account Manager. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 9.³ She would go on to hold other positions at Medtronic. Of particular relevance here, in December 2018, Kuklenski became "Senior Director, Value Based Healthcare ("VBHC") Partnership Lead, Americas." Id. ¶ 10.

Though the precise duties of Kuklenski's position are not clear from the Complaint, she worked frequently in Minnesota and had frequent contacts with Minnesota-based supervisors and personnel. Though a Michigan citizen, Kuklenski "routinely visited Minnesota for work over the course of her career with [Medtronic]; in her 22 years of employment, [she] was physically present in Minnesota for work approximately 20% of the time." Id. ¶ 7. As part of her employment, Kuklenski also had regular remote contact with Minnesota-based Medtronic personnel. She describes these contacts in a single paragraph of her Complaint. There, she alleges to have "regularly reported to four different Minneapolis-based supervisors[,]" had "numerous" contacts with other Minnesota-based Medtronic personnel, participated in many "zoom calls and phone calls[,]" and observed live broadcasts of periodic meetings. Id. ¶ 8.

Kuklenski was asked—and agreed—to remain at Medtronic through a reorganization and take on additional responsibilities. In January 2021, during "an asserted Medtronic reorganization," Medtronic Vice President Linda Engels asked Kuklenski to remain at Medtronic "to assist . . . with pressing transition issues and to manage all four VBHC partnerships." Id. ¶ 13. To that point, Kuklenski had managed just two of those partnerships. Id. Kuklenski agreed "on the explicit condition that her compensation, compensation structure, and title would remain the same." Id. ¶ 14. On January 26, Engels agreed to those conditions. Id. ¶ 15. By staying with Medtronic through the reorganization, Kuklenski missed out on fifty-two weeks' worth of severance pay she would have received had her employment terminated as part of the reorganization. Id. ¶ 14.

Medtronic altered Kuklenski's compensation structure a few months later. On May 27, 2021, Medtronic changed Kuklenski's compensation from the "Medtronic Incentive Plan for non-commercial sales ("MIP") to a Sales Incentive Plan ("SIP"), a commission structured plan." Id. ¶ 16. The inference is that Kuklenski's compensation shifted from one that provided more guaranteed compensation to one that provided more commission-based compensation.

Kuklenski objected to the change. On June 1, Kuklenski asked to return to the MIP structure so that she and Medtronic would be "viewed as a trusted partner" in the VBHC relationships. Id. ¶ 17. Kuklenski explained that the MIP structure had "differentiated [them] from the many strategic suppliers attempting to emulate Medtronic." Id. ¶ 18. Kuklenski also wrote to her "direct boss," Joe Hensley, about the change. Id. ¶ 19. She "detailed, in writing, how the SIP compensation plan failed to adhere to Medtronic's" agreements with the four partnerships she managed ("VBHP Agreements"). Id. Kuklenski wrote that the change violated a "clear and mutual understanding" that she would "represent Medtronic as a VBHC leader, unencumbered by a SIP, a sale, or a product" and "that the commercial and VBHC work must remain separate." Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

Soon after objecting to her changed compensation structure, Kuklenski took FMLA leave. The leave began on June 7. Id. ¶ 22. Kuklenski suffered from "an inner ear disease" that caused her "serious health problems," and her leave was for "required surgery and time off to heal." Id. The surgery was "more extensive and invasive than her surgeon had anticipated," so Kuklenski "requested an extension of her leave until December 7, 2021, when she was prepared to return to work with no restrictions." Id. ¶ 23. On September 15, after receiving the extension request, Senior Employee Relations Manager Rochelle Harris informed Kuklenski: "In order to meet our ongoing business needs, we are posting your position for sourcing and recruitment purposes. If your position is still available when you are released to return to work full time, you may report back to that same position." Id. ¶ 24.

Medtronic filled Kuklenski's position. On October 6, Harris emailed Kuklenski that Medtronic had offered her position to an applicant, meaning it was "being filled." Id. ¶ 25. Harris wrote that, as she had explained on September 15, "Medtronic could not accommodate further leave and need[ed] to fill [her] position." Id. ¶ 26. In a telephone call, Harris told Kuklenski that her medical leave had caused Medtronic "hardship." Id. ¶ 27. On December 2, Harris relayed to Kuklenski that her position would not be available on her extended return date. Id. ¶ 28. Harris later informed Kuklenski that Medtronic "does not offer severance when an employee's position is filled in these circumstances." Id.

Kuklenski filed her six-count Complaint in February 2022. She alleges that Medtronic has used reductions in force and reorganizations as part of a "systemic pattern and practice" designed to "change the makeup of its workforce, whether [ ] based on age, gender, or race," and that Medtronic uses "ages, sex, and race" when making termination decisions during reductions in force. Id. ¶¶ 30, 32. Kuklenski alleges that Medtronic's reorganization in February 2021 was part of this pattern and practice, and that Medtronic told Kuklenski that her position was eliminated when that wasn't so. Id. ¶¶ 32-35. Medtronic, Kuklenski alleges, hired "a younger, less qualified individual" to replace her. Id. ¶ 34. In Counts I and II, Kuklenski asserts age-discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). Id. ¶¶ 36-47. In Count III, Kuklenski asserts an MHRA disability-discrimination claim. Id. ¶¶ 48-56. In Count IV, Kuklenski asserts a promissory estoppel claim, alleging that she forfeited severance pay in reliance on Medtronic's promise that her job title and compensation would remain the same. Id. ¶¶ 57-64. In Count V, Kuklenski alleges that Medtronic violated the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") by terminating her because of her decision to take FMLA medical leave. Id. ¶¶ 65-72. And in Count VI, Kuklenski claims that Medtronic violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act ("MWA") by terminating her employment and "threatening legal claims against her" in retaliation for her report that Medtronic had violated the VBHP Agreements by placing her on a commission-based compensation model. Id. ¶¶ 73-82.

II

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Gorog v. Best Buy Co., 760 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2014). Although the factual allegations need not be detailed, they must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

A

Medtronic seeks the dismissal of Kuklenski's MHRA claims in Counts I, II, and III on the ground that the MHRA protects only an employee "who resides or works in" Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subdiv. 15, and Kuklenski, Medtronic contends, did not reside or work in Minnesota.⁴ Kuklenski agrees that she does not reside in Minnesota. She argues in substance that the Complaint's allegations regarding (1) her occasional work-related physical presence within Minnesota and (2) her frequent work-related communications with Minnesota-based Medtronic employees plausibly show that she worked in Minnesota for purposes of the MHRA.

Considering just statutory text, what it means to "work[ ] in this state" for purposes of the MHRA, Minn. Stat. § 363A.03, subdiv. 15, seems obvious in...