Preview
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF OLMSTED THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Employment
Benjamin Glubka, Court File No.: 55-CV-24-3499
Judge Joseph F. Chase
Plaintiff,
v.
DEFENDANT CORNERSTONE
Cornerstone Management Services LLC, MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC’S
ANSWER TO
Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Defendant Cornerstone Management Services LLC (“Cornerstone” or “Defendant”) denies
each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint of Benjamin Glubka (“Glubka” or “Plaintiff”)
except as specifically admitted, qualified, or otherwise answered below, and for its Answer to the
Complaint, hereby states and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
2. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.
7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
1
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
8. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan
on or about February 13, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 8.
9. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was terminated on or about March 5, 2024.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. Paragraph 10 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
PARTIES
11. Upon information and believe, Defendant admits the allegations contained in
Paragraph 11.
12. Defendant admits Cornerstone is a Minnesota company and denies the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 12.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. Paragraph 13 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
14. Paragraph 14 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
FACTS
Background
15. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore
denies.
16. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16.
2
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
17. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and therefore
denies.
18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.
20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.
23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
24. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
Mr. Glubka’s Initial Protected Activity and Cornerstone’s Pattern, Practice, and
Corporate Culture of Neglect
25. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
27. The document referenced in Paragraph 27 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 27 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
28. The document referenced in Paragraph 28 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 28 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
3
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
29. The document referenced in Paragraph 29 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 29 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
30. Defendant admits that on or about January 8, 2024, Regional Director Hannah
Pryor asked Mr. Flannery to conduct a training for Lino Lakes staff members. Defendants deny
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30.
31. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
32. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
33. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33.
34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.
35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
36. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint and therefore denies.
37. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
38. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
39. The document referenced in Paragraph 39 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 39 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
40. The document referenced in Paragraph 40 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 40 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
4
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
41. The document referenced in Paragraph 41 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 41 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
42. The document referenced in Paragraph 42 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 42 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
43. The document referenced in Paragraph 43 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 43 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
44. The document referenced in Paragraph 44 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 44 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
45. The document referenced in Paragraph 45 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 45 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written
document.
46. Paragraph 46 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 46.
47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47.
48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48.
49. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49.
The January 22, 2024 Resident Death
50. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 and therefore denies.
5
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
51. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51.
52. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 and therefore denies.
53. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 and therefore denies.
54. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 and therefore denies.
55. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 and therefore denies.
56. Defendant admits that Execute Director Jake Chernugal investigated the incident
on January 22 and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56.
Mr. Glubka Reports His Concern About the Death and Corresponding Failure to Report
57. Paragraph 57 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57.
58. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58.
59. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59.
60. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60.
61. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 and therefore denies.
62. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62.
63. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63.
64. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64.
65. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65.
6
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
66. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66.
The Retaliatory Performance Improvement Plan & Administrative Leave
67. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on Performance Improvement Plan on
or about February 12, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 67.
68. The document referenced in Paragraph 68 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 68 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
69. Defendant admits that it provided a copy of the PIP to Defendant on February 13,
2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 69.
70. The document referenced in Paragraph 70 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 70 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
71. The document referenced in Paragraph 71 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 71 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
72. The document referenced in Paragraph 72 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 72 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
73. The document referenced in Paragraph 73 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 73 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
74. The document referenced in Paragraph 74 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the
allegations in Paragraph 74 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
75. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.
76. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 76.
77. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 and therefore denies.
7
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
78. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 and therefore denies.
79. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 and therefore denies.
80. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 and therefore denies.
81. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 and therefore denies.
82. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 82 and therefore denies.
83. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 83.
84. Defendant admits Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and denies the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 84.
85. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 85.
86. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 86.
Mr. Glubka’s Termination
87. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 and therefore denies.
88. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 88.
89. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 89.
90. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 90.
91. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 91.
92. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 92.
8
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
93. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 93.
94. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was terminated on or about March 5, 2024. The
document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
94 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
95. Defendant admits that Plaintiff declined to sign the severance agreement.
96. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka was told the reasons for his termination.
Defendant does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy
of the quoted language and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 96.
Defendant affirmatively alleges that any quoted statements do not accurately reflect the entire
conversation.
97. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka asked questions during the meeting. Defendant
does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 97 and therefore denies. Defendant affirmatively alleges that
any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation.
98. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 98 and therefore denies.
99. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 99 and therefore denies. Defendant
affirmatively alleges that any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation.
100. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka asked questions during the meeting. Defendant
does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy of the quoted
language and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 100. Defendant
affirmatively alleges that any quoted statements do not accurately reflect the entire conversation.
9
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
101. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in
Paragraph 101 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
102. Defendant does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 102 and therefore denies. Defendant
affirmatively alleges that any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation.
103. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in
Paragraph 103 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
104. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in
Paragraph 104 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
105. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 105.
106. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in
Paragraph 106 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document.
CAUSE OF ACTION
COUNT I
RETALIATION
IN VIOLATION OF THE MWA
107. In response to Paragraph 107 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant hereby
reincorporates and reallages the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 106.
108. Paragraph 108 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 108.
109. Paragraph 109 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 109.
110. Paragraph 110 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 110.
10
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
111. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 111.
112. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 112.
113. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 113.
114. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 114.
115. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 115.
COUNT II
RETALIATION
IN VIOLATION OF THE MVAA
116. In response to Paragraph 116 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant hereby
reincorporates and reallages the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 115.
117. Paragraph 117 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 117.
118. Paragraph 118 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 118.
119. Paragraph 119 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 119.
120. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 120.
121. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 121.
122. Paragraph 122 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 122.
123. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 123.
124. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 124.
11
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Defendant denies the allegations contained in the WHEREFORE clauses and specifically
denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim or claims against Defendant upon which relief
can be granted or, alternatively, that Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient material facts to
support claims against Defendant.
2. Plaintiff’s own negligent acts, omissions, or other fault caused and contributed to
Plaintiff’s alleged damages. Any purported damages to Plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part,
by Plaintiff’s own wrongful actions.
3. Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action fail because Defendant and/or its
agents acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner and in accordance with applicable laws at
all relevant times.
4. All actions taken by Defendant were based on legitimate business considerations
and were made in good faith, and in compliance with the provisions of state and federal law, rules,
and regulations.
5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on legal justification and/or privilege.
6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of after-acquired
evidence.
7. Plaintiff is unable to prove that he has sustained any damages.
8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited, in whole or in part, by the terms of
applicable contracts, bylaws, and/or agreements.
12
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
9. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel, laches, waiver, and/or
the doctrine of unclean hands.
10. Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate his alleged
damages, if any. Had Plaintiff timely and diligently taken reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate
his alleged damages, such damages would have been reduced or avoided altogether. By failing to
mitigate damages, Plaintiff is barred, in whole or in part, from recovering damages, if any, in this
action. Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should therefore be reduced by an amount proportionate to the
amount by which such failure to mitigate caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
11. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred because of the acts of other parties
and/or nonparties.
12. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted may be barred by any or all of the
affirmative defenses contemplated by Rule 8.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. To the
extent which the Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by one or more of the affirmative defenses not
specifically cited above which cannot be determined until there has been further discovery, this
answering Defendant incorporates all such affirmative defenses set forth in, or contemplated by,
Rule 8.03.
13. Defendant reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as they become
known to them through discovery.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that:
a. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff take nothing thereby;
b. Defendant be awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection
with the defense of this action; and
13
55-CV-24-3499
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
6/24/2024 3:43 PM
c. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
By: /s/ Daniel P. Brees
Suzanne L. Jones, MN Bar No. 389345
Daniel P. Brees, MN Bar No. 395284
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3850
Minneapolis, MN 55402
sljones@grsm.com
dbrees@grsm.com
Attorneys for Defendant Cornerstone Management
Services LLC.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 549.211.
Dated: June 24, 2024 By: /s/ Daniel P. Brees
14
Preview
55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF OLMSTED THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Employment Benjamin Glubka, Court File No.: 55-CV-24-3499 Judge Joseph F. Chase Plaintiff, v. DEFENDANT CORNERSTONE Cornerstone Management Services LLC, MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC’S ANSWER TO Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Defendant Cornerstone Management Services LLC (“Cornerstone” or “Defendant”) denies each and every allegation set forth in the Complaint of Benjamin Glubka (“Glubka” or “Plaintiff”) except as specifically admitted, qualified, or otherwise answered below, and for its Answer to the Complaint, hereby states and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 3. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 5. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 1 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 8. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan on or about February 13, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was terminated on or about March 5, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9. 10. Paragraph 10 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. PARTIES 11. Upon information and believe, Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. 12. Defendant admits Cornerstone is a Minnesota company and denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13. Paragraph 13 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. 14. Paragraph 14 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14. FACTS Background 15. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 16. Defendant admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16. 2 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 17. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 18. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23. 24. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint and therefore denies. Mr. Glubka’s Initial Protected Activity and Cornerstone’s Pattern, Practice, and Corporate Culture of Neglect 25. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 26. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 26. 27. The document referenced in Paragraph 27 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 28. The document referenced in Paragraph 28 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 3 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 29. The document referenced in Paragraph 29 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 30. Defendant admits that on or about January 8, 2024, Regional Director Hannah Pryor asked Mr. Flannery to conduct a training for Lino Lakes staff members. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 32. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 33. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 33. 34. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint and therefore denies. 37. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37. 38. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38. 39. The document referenced in Paragraph 39 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 40. The document referenced in Paragraph 40 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 4 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 41. The document referenced in Paragraph 41 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 42. The document referenced in Paragraph 42 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 43. The document referenced in Paragraph 43 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 44. The document referenced in Paragraph 44 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 45. The document referenced in Paragraph 45 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 46. Paragraph 46 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47. 48. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48. 49. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49. The January 22, 2024 Resident Death 50. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 and therefore denies. 5 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 51. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 51. 52. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 and therefore denies. 53. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 and therefore denies. 54. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 and therefore denies. 55. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 and therefore denies. 56. Defendant admits that Execute Director Jake Chernugal investigated the incident on January 22 and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56. Mr. Glubka Reports His Concern About the Death and Corresponding Failure to Report 57. Paragraph 57 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57. 58. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 58. 59. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 59. 60. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60. 61. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 and therefore denies. 62. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 62. 63. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 63. 64. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 64. 65. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 65. 6 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 66. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 66. The Retaliatory Performance Improvement Plan & Administrative Leave 67. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was placed on Performance Improvement Plan on or about February 12, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 67. 68. The document referenced in Paragraph 68 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 69. Defendant admits that it provided a copy of the PIP to Defendant on February 13, 2024. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 69. 70. The document referenced in Paragraph 70 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 71. The document referenced in Paragraph 71 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 72. The document referenced in Paragraph 72 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 73. The document referenced in Paragraph 73 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 74. The document referenced in Paragraph 74 speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 75. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 75. 76. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 76. 77. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 and therefore denies. 7 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 78. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 and therefore denies. 79. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 and therefore denies. 80. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 and therefore denies. 81. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 and therefore denies. 82. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 82 and therefore denies. 83. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 83. 84. Defendant admits Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave and denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 84. 85. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 85. 86. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 86. Mr. Glubka’s Termination 87. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 and therefore denies. 88. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 88. 89. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 89. 90. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 90. 91. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 91. 92. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 92. 8 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 93. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 93. 94. Defendant admits that Plaintiff was terminated on or about March 5, 2024. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 94 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 95. Defendant admits that Plaintiff declined to sign the severance agreement. 96. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka was told the reasons for his termination. Defendant does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy of the quoted language and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 96. Defendant affirmatively alleges that any quoted statements do not accurately reflect the entire conversation. 97. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka asked questions during the meeting. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 97 and therefore denies. Defendant affirmatively alleges that any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation. 98. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 98 and therefore denies. 99. Defendant does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 99 and therefore denies. Defendant affirmatively alleges that any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation. 100. Defendant admits that Mr. Glubka asked questions during the meeting. Defendant does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy of the quoted language and therefore denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 100. Defendant affirmatively alleges that any quoted statements do not accurately reflect the entire conversation. 9 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 101. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 101 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 102. Defendant does not have information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 102 and therefore denies. Defendant affirmatively alleges that any statements alleged do not accurately reflect the entire conversation. 103. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 103 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 104. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 104 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. 105. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 105. 106. The document referenced speaks for itself. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 to the extent they are inconsistent with the written document. CAUSE OF ACTION COUNT I RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE MWA 107. In response to Paragraph 107 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant hereby reincorporates and reallages the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 106. 108. Paragraph 108 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 108. 109. Paragraph 109 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 109. 110. Paragraph 110 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 110. 10 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 111. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 111. 112. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 112. 113. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 113. 114. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 114. 115. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 115. COUNT II RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE MVAA 116. In response to Paragraph 116 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant hereby reincorporates and reallages the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 115. 117. Paragraph 117 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 117. 118. Paragraph 118 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 118. 119. Paragraph 119 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 119. 120. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 120. 121. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 121. 122. Paragraph 122 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 122. 123. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 123. 124. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 124. 11 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies the allegations contained in the WHEREFORE clauses and specifically denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim or claims against Defendant upon which relief can be granted or, alternatively, that Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient material facts to support claims against Defendant. 2. Plaintiff’s own negligent acts, omissions, or other fault caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages. Any purported damages to Plaintiff were caused, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s own wrongful actions. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint and each cause of action fail because Defendant and/or its agents acted in good faith and in a reasonable manner and in accordance with applicable laws at all relevant times. 4. All actions taken by Defendant were based on legitimate business considerations and were made in good faith, and in compliance with the provisions of state and federal law, rules, and regulations. 5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred based on legal justification and/or privilege. 6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence. 7. Plaintiff is unable to prove that he has sustained any damages. 8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited, in whole or in part, by the terms of applicable contracts, bylaws, and/or agreements. 12 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM 9. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred by estoppel, laches, waiver, and/or the doctrine of unclean hands. 10. Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate his alleged damages, if any. Had Plaintiff timely and diligently taken reasonable steps to avoid and/or mitigate his alleged damages, such damages would have been reduced or avoided altogether. By failing to mitigate damages, Plaintiff is barred, in whole or in part, from recovering damages, if any, in this action. Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, should therefore be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which such failure to mitigate caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages. 11. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are barred because of the acts of other parties and/or nonparties. 12. Defendant alleges that the claims asserted may be barred by any or all of the affirmative defenses contemplated by Rule 8.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent which the Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by one or more of the affirmative defenses not specifically cited above which cannot be determined until there has been further discovery, this answering Defendant incorporates all such affirmative defenses set forth in, or contemplated by, Rule 8.03. 13. Defendant reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as they become known to them through discovery. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that: a. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff take nothing thereby; b. Defendant be awarded their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the defense of this action; and 13 55-CV-24-3499 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 6/24/2024 3:43 PM c. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: June 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP By: /s/ Daniel P. Brees Suzanne L. Jones, MN Bar No. 389345 Daniel P. Brees, MN Bar No. 395284 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3850 Minneapolis, MN 55402 sljones@grsm.com dbrees@grsm.com Attorneys for Defendant Cornerstone Management Services LLC. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211. Dated: June 24, 2024 By: /s/ Daniel P. Brees 14