Hernandez v. Dave & Buster’s
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:25-cv-00551
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Hernandez v. Dave & Buster's, Judge Montgomery remanded the disability discrimination case to Minnesota state court, finding the individual manager defendant was not fraudulently joined.
Employees who sue both their employer and an individual supervisor for workplace retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act may be affected by this ruling. It confirms that courts applying the fraudulent joinder standard will remand cases to state court when individual supervisor liability under the MHRA reprisal statute is legally unsettled, even if the ultimate question of individual liability remains unresolved. Employers seeking to remove MHRA retaliation cases to federal court by arguing a supervisor was fraudulently joined face a heavy burden when the law is ambiguous.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Dave & Buster's, Inc. and Anthony Donatelle, Carlos Hernandez sued his former employer Dave & Buster's and his direct manager, Anthony Donatelle, in Minnesota state court, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act after he was fired in August 2024 following a series of doctor's notes about his osteoarthritis and a scheduled knee surgery. Defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming the manager Donatelle — a Minnesota resident like Hernandez — had been fraudulently added to the lawsuit solely to block removal to federal court, which would have required complete diversity of citizenship (meaning no plaintiff and defendant share a state of residency).
The central question was whether there was any reasonable legal and factual basis for the retaliation claim against Donatelle personally. Judge Ann D. Montgomery found that Minnesota law is genuinely unsettled on whether individual supervisors can be held personally liable for retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and that several courts have found such liability is at least arguable. She also found that the facts alleged — including Donatelle's alleged mocking of Hernandez's medical needs, placing him on a performance plan, and Hernandez's firing shortly after submitting medical documentation — provided a plausible factual basis for a retaliation claim against Donatelle. Because the legal and factual questions were not clearly foreclosed, Defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of proving fraudulent joinder, and Judge Montgomery granted Hernandez's motion to lift the stay and remand the case to Hennepin County District Court. The defendants' motions to compel arbitration, vacate the arbitration award, and dismiss were not addressed.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Dave & Buster’s · No. 0:25-cv-00551
- Ann Montgomery
- Mar. 6, 2026
Background
Carlos Hernandez worked for Dave & Buster's, Inc. (a Missouri corporation) for over 20 years, most recently as a kitchen manager at the Maple Grove, Minnesota location starting in 2023. His direct supervisor was Anthony Donatelle, a Minnesota resident like Hernandez.
In April 2024, Hernandez was treated for osteoarthritis in his knee and provided his manager Donatelle with a doctor's note requesting accommodation (icing and elevating his leg). Hernandez alleges that after receiving this note, Donatelle began micromanaging him, swearing at him, and writing him up for errors not his fault. In July 2024, Donatelle placed Hernandez on a performance improvement plan. Later that month, Hernandez suffered an osteoarthritis flare-up; a doctor provided work restrictions (no more than six to seven hours per day, no lifting over 40 pounds, 15-minute breaks every hour). Hernandez alleges Donatelle mocked these restrictions. In early August 2024, Hernandez submitted a note about an upcoming knee surgery scheduled for September 3, 2024. Days later, on August 9, 2024, Hernandez was terminated for purported poor job performance.
Procedural History
Hernandez filed suit in Hennepin County District Court in January 2025, alleging (1) disability discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) against Dave & Buster's, and (2) retaliation (called "reprisal" under the MHRA) in violation of the MHRA against both Defendants.
Defendants removed the case to federal court in February 2025, invoking diversity jurisdiction — the federal court rule requiring that all plaintiffs and all defendants be citizens of different states. Because Hernandez and Donatelle are both Minnesota residents, Defendants argued that Donatelle had been "fraudulently joined" (i.e., improperly added to the lawsuit with no real legal basis) solely to destroy diversity and prevent removal.
The parties jointly moved to stay the case pending arbitration. The court granted that stay pending an arbitrator's ruling on whether the dispute was subject to arbitration. In October 2025, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was void for "illusory consideration" (meaning one party received nothing of real value in exchange for the agreement, making it unenforceable). Defendants then moved in federal court to vacate the arbitration award and compel arbitration, and also moved to dismiss the reprisal claim against Donatelle as fraudulently joined. Hernandez moved to lift the stay and remand the case to state court.
Legal Framework: Fraudulent Joinder
Federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires "complete diversity" — every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state from every defendant. If a plaintiff and a defendant share state citizenship, federal courts lack jurisdiction.
When a defendant claims that a non-diverse party was fraudulently joined, the defendant bears a heavy burden: joinder is fraudulent only when it is clear under governing state law that the complaint states no cause of action against the non-diverse defendant. Any doubt about jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remanding to state court. The question is not whether the plaintiff will win, but whether there is a "colorable" (i.e., reasonably arguable) claim — meaning state law might impose liability on the resident defendant under the facts alleged.
Analysis
Individual Liability Under the MHRA Reprisal Statute
The MHRA's reprisal statute, Minn. Stat. § 363A.15, makes it an unfair discriminatory practice for "any individual who participated in the alleged discrimination as a perpetrator" — among other listed categories — to intentionally retaliate against a person who engaged in protected activity.
The parties disputed whether this language imposes personal liability on individual managers. Hernandez argued the statute's reference to "any individual" and "employee or agent thereof" encompasses supervisors acting in their employment capacity. Defendants argued that "employee or agent thereof" refers only to employees of real estate brokers or salespersons listed in the statute, not to employment supervisors.
The court noted that no Minnesota appellate court has definitively resolved this question. However, multiple state and federal district courts have concluded that the statute arguably imposes individual liability on supervisors, including: - Arens v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Minn. 2012) (remanding because the question of individual supervisor liability was unsettled) - Lovely v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. 24-1010, 2024 WL 3300563 (D. Minn. July 3, 2024) (remanding because individual liability was "unclear") - Larson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-2117, 2014 WL 300933 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2014) (finding the statute arguably imposes individual liability) - Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc., No. 73-CV-12-7130, 2013 WL 11320101 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 19, 2013) (denying summary judgment on reprisal claims against individual defendants) - Pribyl v. Bernard J. Mulcahy Co., Inc., No. 19HA-CV-23-5288, 2024 WL 4007470 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr. 12, 2024) (denying motion to dismiss reprisal claims against individual supervisor)
The court concluded that because the legal question is genuinely unsettled and several courts have found individual liability arguable, a reasonable basis in law exists to support the reprisal claim against Donatelle. Consistent with Eighth Circuit guidance, the court declined to definitively resolve the ambiguous state law question and left it for state courts to decide.
Factual Basis for the Reprisal Claim
To state a prima facie case of MHRA reprisal, a plaintiff must show: (1) statutorily protected conduct; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the two. Requesting a disability accommodation constitutes protected conduct under the MHRA.
The court found all three elements plausibly supported by Hernandez's allegations:
- Protected conduct: Hernandez requested accommodations for his osteoarthritis via multiple doctor's notes.
- Adverse action: Hernandez was placed on a performance improvement plan and ultimately terminated.
- Causal connection: The close timing between Hernandez's accommodation requests and the adverse actions, combined with Donatelle's alleged mockery of Hernandez's medical needs, supports an inference of a causal link. The court also noted that Hernandez's 20-plus years of employment before the performance improvement plan added credibility to the retaliation theory.
Disposition
Because Defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of showing fraudulent joinder — both the legal and factual bases for the reprisal claim against Donatelle were at least arguable — the court found complete diversity was absent. Without diversity jurisdiction, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the removed case. Accordingly, Judge Montgomery granted Hernandez's motion to lift the stay and remanded the case to Hennepin County District Court.
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Vacate the Arbitration Award and Motion to Dismiss were not reached, as the court lacked jurisdiction to address them.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.