Balow v. Medtronic USA, Inc., 0:23-cv-00843

Plaintiff Jeffrey Balow, a sales representative at Medtronic USA, Inc., claimed he was subjected to age and sex discrimination and retaliated against after his commissions were reduced and his employment was terminated.
Balow's discrimination claims stemmed from the promotion of a younger, female colleague (Angela Pan), which altered commission splits in their territory, allegedly reducing his earnings.
Balow's retaliation claims arose from (1) his internal and external complaints about Pan's conduct and Medtronic policies, (2) complaints about alleged discrimination, (3) receiving a final written warning, and (4) his eventual firing after a product defect reporting issue.
Medtronic argued it had legitimate business reasons for all actions—routine adjustments to commissions, non-pretextual disciplinary action for inappropriate texts and work performance, and termination due to failure to comply with company policy regarding defect reporting.
The District Court considered Medtronic's motion for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing all of Balow's claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age and sex discrimination under VHRA	Commission changes and promotion were due to his age and sex	Changes were routine and based on legitimate business needs	For Defendant—no evidence of pretext or discriminatory motive
Retaliation under VWPA for reporting policy/law violations	Retaliated against for reporting Pan's policy/law violations	Complaints didn’t reference law violations; not protected conduct	For Defendant—not protected activity under VWPA
Retaliation for discrimination complaints (commission split, warning, termination)	Employer retaliated for raising age/sex bias and filing lawsuits/charges	Legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for discipline and termination	For Defendant—no causation or evidence of pretext
Termination for product defect handling	Firing was in retaliation for earlier complaints and differential treatment	Fired for not complying with product defect reporting policy, no comparators	For Defendant—no evidence of pretext or disparate treatment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute of material fact standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
Main v. Ozark Health, Inc., 959 F.3d 319 (8th Cir. 2020) (replacement by younger/other sex not per se discriminatory)
Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2010) (good faith belief in employee misconduct defeats pretext)