Joseph v. Wal-Mart Corporation

Background

Olusegun Joseph alleged that he has one hand and formerly worked as a gatekeeper at a Wal-Mart store in Maple Grove, Minnesota. He alleged that his disability caused him to need more than the standard 15-minute breaks to reach the bathroom and complete personal tasks. According to the amended complaint, his manager told him not to return late from breaks and suggested that he take shorter breaks. Joseph alleged that he began shortening or skipping breaks instead.

Joseph also alleged that he was injured during an October 2018 confrontation with a customer and continued working after Wal-Mart replaced his broken glasses. At an unspecified later time, managers called him into an office, had him sign for his check, and told him he was fired. He alleged that he did not receive a termination letter.

On May 30, 2019, Joseph sent Wal-Mart a notice of intent to sue and requested his personnel file, but he alleged that Wal-Mart did not respond. On March 21, 2020, his counsel sent a discrimination charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, requesting that it also be filed with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Joseph filed this lawsuit on May 26, 2020, and later amended his complaint.

Motion and governing standard

Wal-Mart moved to dismiss all claims except the claim concerning Joseph’s personnel file. Because Wal-Mart filed its motion after filing an answer on the same day, the court treated the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court explained that Rule 12(c) motions use the same standard as motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6): the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show an entitlement to relief.

Disability-discrimination claims

Wal-Mart argued that Joseph’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act were untimely. The court noted that the amended complaint did not state Joseph’s termination date, but the parties agreed that his administrative charge and lawsuit were untimely. Joseph argued that Wal-Mart should be prevented from relying on the deadlines under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which can sometimes prevent a defendant from asserting a limitations defense when the defendant’s deliberate or affirmative conduct caused the delay.

Joseph’s only argument was that Wal-Mart intentionally delayed providing his personnel file. The court found that Joseph did not explain how the missing file prevented him from filing his discrimination claims. It also found that he alleged no facts showing affirmative misconduct that misled or tricked him into waiting. The court stated that Wal-Mart’s silence was not enough. The court further noted that, even if Joseph’s argument were treated as one for equitable tolling, the complaint did not identify information about the claims that Joseph could not have learned before the deadlines expired.

The court therefore ruled that equitable estoppel did not excuse the untimely filing and dismissed the ADA and MHRA claims.

Wrongful-termination claim

Wal-Mart also argued that Joseph failed to state a Minnesota common-law wrongful-termination claim. The court noted that Joseph did not respond to this argument in his opposition memorandum, and courts sometimes treat such silence as abandonment. The court nevertheless addressed the claim and held that it failed as a matter of law.

Minnesota generally follows at-will employment, meaning that employment ordinarily may be ended for any reason or no reason. Minnesota recognizes a narrow public-policy exception when an employee is terminated for refusing to do something the employee in good faith believes is illegal. Joseph did not allege that he refused to perform any act, much less one he believed was illegal. The court held that alleging discrimination in violation of federal and state statutes was not enough to state this separate common-law claim, and it dismissed the wrongful-termination claim.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss. It dismissed Counts I, II, and III of the amended complaint with prejudice. The order did not dismiss the personnel-file claim, which was excluded from Wal-Mart’s motion.