Rose v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Melinda C. Rose worked as a receiving manager at Costco’s Eden Prairie, Minnesota, warehouse. After experiencing symptoms of fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety, she took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and returned to part-time work in September 2019. In late October, she complained in writing to the store’s general manager about comments by her supervisor that Rose viewed as discriminatory toward her disabilities.

Before returning to full-time work in November, Rose’s physician imposed permanent restrictions, including a 30-pound lifting limit, no forklift operation or presence around forklifts because she could not wear Costco’s required steel-toed boots, and permission to sit for 10 minutes each hour and change positions every 30 minutes. Rose worked eight-hour days on four days in November and contended that, with help from her team, she did so without violating her restrictions. After reviewing the restrictions, Costco determined that she could not perform the receiving-manager duties and placed her on unpaid leave. Costco stated that it tried for a year to find another position Rose could perform and then terminated her employment under its policy.

Rose brought three claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act: failure to accommodate her disability; disability discrimination based on her placement on unpaid leave, which she characterized as a constructive discharge; and retaliation for her October complaint. Costco moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule for a party without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a material fact and the party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Failure to Accommodate

The court denied summary judgment on Rose’s reasonable-accommodation claim. Costco relied on the written receiving-manager job description, which required occasional lifting of up to 50 pounds and forklift use. Costco also argued that employees had to help customers lift heavy objects, sometimes weighing more than 40 pounds.

Rose presented evidence that heavy lifting was infrequent, coworkers were willing and able to help, she had successfully worked full-time for a week under her restrictions, and other Costco locations allowed employees to wear composite boots that could have avoided the forklift restriction. The court explained that Costco’s view of which duties were essential was important evidence but was not conclusive. Costco’s argument that Rose might sometimes be alone and need help lifting heavy items was considered speculative. Because the evidence, viewed favorably to Rose, created a factual dispute about whether she could perform the job and whether Costco could reasonably accommodate her, the court ruled that a jury must resolve the claim.

Disability Discrimination

The court granted Costco judgment on Rose’s disability-discrimination claim. Costco offered Rose’s restrictions and its determination that she could not perform the essential functions of the receiving-manager job as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for placing her on unpaid leave. The court found that Rose did not provide evidence showing that this explanation was false and that disability discrimination was the real reason for the action. The court stated that Costco followed procedures involving an outside independent consultant to evaluate her restrictions and the job. Although Costco’s accommodation judgment might have been incorrect, the court held that this did not establish discriminatory intent. The discrimination claim was dismissed.

Retaliation

The court also granted Costco judgment on Rose’s retaliation, or reprisal, claim. Rose argued that her unpaid leave was retaliation for reporting her supervisor’s alleged discriminatory comments. The court found no evidence of a causal connection between the report and the leave. Nearly five weeks separated the report and the leave, and Rose’s presentation of her physician-imposed restrictions occurred between those events. The court treated the restrictions as an intervening event that broke the claimed causal connection. The reprisal claim was dismissed.

Disposition

The court ordered that Costco’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary judgment was denied as to Rose’s reasonable-accommodation claim and granted as to her disability-discrimination and reprisal claims. The opinion does not resolve the accommodation claim on the merits; it identifies factual questions for a jury.