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, Inc. and Anthony Donatelle, Judge Ann D. Montgomery granted plaintiff Carlos Hernandez's motion to lift a stay and remand the case back to Minnesota state court, finding that the individual manager defendant Anthony Donatelle was not fraudulently joined and therefore federal court lacked the diversity of citizenship needed to hear the case.
Employees who bring disability discrimination or retaliation claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act against both their employer and an individual supervisor, particularly where the individual supervisor's presence in the lawsuit affects which court (state or federal) hears the case. Also relevant to employers and their counsel considering removal of MHRA cases to federal court on fraudulent joinder grounds.
What happened
In Hernandez v. Dave & Buster's, Inc. and Anthony Donatelle, Carlos Hernandez, a long-term employee of Dave & Buster's, sued his employer and his direct manager, Anthony Donatelle, in Minnesota state court after he was fired in August 2024, shortly after submitting doctor's notes about his osteoarthritis and an upcoming knee surgery. Hernandez alleged that after he sought workplace accommodations for his knee condition, Donatelle began micromanaging him, placed him on a performance improvement plan, and ultimately terminated him, which Hernandez claimed was illegal disability discrimination and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Defendants moved the case to federal court by claiming that Donatelle — a fellow Minnesota resident whose presence would normally block federal court jurisdiction because both he and Hernandez are from Minnesota — was only added to the lawsuit as a trick to avoid federal court, a legal concept known as 'fraudulent joinder.' The case was then paused while an arbitrator decided whether the dispute had to go through arbitration; the arbitrator ruled it did not, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable. Defendants then asked the federal court to throw out the arbitrator's ruling and move forward in federal court.
Judge Ann D. Montgomery ruled that Donatelle was not fraudulently joined because both Minnesota and federal district courts have found that the Minnesota Human Rights Act's retaliation provision arguably allows individual supervisors to be held personally liable for retaliation, and because Hernandez's factual allegations provided a plausible basis for a retaliation claim against Donatelle specifically. Because the court found it lacked the diversity of citizenship required for federal jurisdiction, it remanded the entire case back to Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota without ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss or to compel arbitration.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Dave & Buster's, Inc. and Anthony Donatelle, Civil No. 25-551 ADM/JFD (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2026)
- Ann D. Montgomery, U.S. District Judge
Background and Facts Carlos Hernandez began working for Dave & Buster's, Inc. in 2001 and by 2023 was serving as a kitchen manager at a Maple Grove, Minnesota location. Anthony Donatelle was his direct supervisor. In April 2024, Hernandez sought medical treatment for osteoarthritis in his knee and provided Donatelle with a doctor's note requesting accommodations (icing and elevating his leg). Hernandez alleges that Donatelle then 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 (a formal workplace disciplinary document). After Hernandez submitted further doctor's notes in late July requesting work restrictions and in early August noting an upcoming September knee surgery, he was terminated in August 2024 for allegedly failing to meet performance expectations.
Claims Hernandez sued in Hennepin County District Court alleging: (1) disability discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) against Dave & Buster's; and (2) retaliation (called 'reprisal' under the MHRA, Minn. Stat. § 363A.15) against both Dave & Buster's and Donatelle individually.
Procedural History Defendants removed the case to federal court in February 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction (meaning the parties are from different states and the amount at issue exceeds $75,000, giving federal courts authority to hear the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332). The basis for removal was Defendants' claim that Donatelle, also a Minnesota resident like Hernandez, was 'fraudulently joined' — meaning added solely to destroy diversity and block removal. Without fraudulent joinder, complete diversity would be absent (both Hernandez and Donatelle are Minnesota citizens), and federal jurisdiction would not exist.
The parties then jointly agreed to stay (pause) the federal case while an arbitrator decided whether Hernandez's claims had to go through binding arbitration per a Dave & Buster's arbitration agreement. In October 2025, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration, ruling the arbitration agreement was void for 'illusory consideration' (meaning the agreement lacked the mutual obligations necessary to be enforceable). Defendants moved to vacate that arbitration ruling and to compel arbitration, and also moved to dismiss Donatelle from the case as fraudulently joined. Hernandez moved to lift the stay and remand the case back to state court.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Analysis The court addressed jurisdiction first, as required, because without jurisdiction it could not rule on the other motions. Federal diversity jurisdiction requires 'complete diversity,' meaning no plaintiff and no defendant can be citizens of the same state. Because both Hernandez and Donatelle are Minnesota citizens, diversity was absent unless Donatelle was fraudulently joined.
Fraudulent joinder is established only if it is clear under state law that the complaint states no colorable (plausible) cause of action against the non-diverse defendant. The burden falls heavily on the removing defendants. All doubts must be resolved in favor of remanding to state court.
Individual Liability Under MHRA Reprisal Statute The court analyzed whether Minnesota law arguably permits individual liability for a manager under the MHRA reprisal statute, Minn. Stat. § 363A.15, which makes it an 'unfair discriminatory practice for any individual who participated in the alleged discrimination as a perpetrator' to engage in reprisal. The parties disputed whether 'any individual' and 'employee or agent thereof' language extends liability to supervisors in their individual capacity. No Minnesota appellate court has directly resolved this question.
The court found that several state and federal district court decisions provided a reasonable basis in law for individual supervisor liability under the reprisal statute, citing: Arens v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Minn. 2012); Lovely v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2024 WL 3300563 (D. Minn. 2024); Larson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 300933 (D. Minn. 2014); Pearson v. Rohn Industries, Inc., 2013 WL 11320101 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2013); and Pribyl v. Bernard J. Mulcahy Co., Inc., 2024 WL 4007470 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2024). The court declined to definitively resolve the ambiguous state law question, consistent with Eighth Circuit guidance that doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.
Factual Basis for Reprisal Claim The court also found a reasonable factual basis for the reprisal claim against Donatelle individually. To establish a prima facie case (the minimum showing needed) of MHRA reprisal, a plaintiff must show: (1) protected activity; (2) adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the two. Hernandez's allegations — that Donatelle received the accommodation requests, reacted negatively, placed Hernandez on a performance improvement plan, and (as Hernandez's supervisor) was plausibly involved in the termination decision — were sufficient to support a colorable individual reprisal claim. The court also noted that Hernandez's more than 20 years of employment before being put on a performance plan lent credibility to the retaliation inference.
Ruling
- Hernandez's Motion to Lift Stay and Remand [Docket No. 31]: GRANTED. The court found Donatelle was not fraudulently joined, complete diversity was absent, and federal jurisdiction did not exist. Case remanded to Hennepin County District Court.
- Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Vacate Arbitration Award [Docket No. 19]: Not reached (left for state court).
- Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 25]: Not reached (left for state court).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.