Rose v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Melinda C. Rose sued her employer, Costco Wholesale Corporation, under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging that Costco failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities. After earlier motion practice, the only claim remaining for trial was the reasonable-accommodation claim.

Rose had taken medical leave because of fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety. When she returned to full-time work as a receiving manager, her physician restricted her from lifting more than 30 pounds and from operating or being near forklifts because she could not wear Costco-required steel-toed boots. She also was required to sit for 10 minutes every hour and change positions every 30 minutes.

Costco told Rose that she could not continue as receiving manager because forklifts were used in the receiving area and the position required lifting up to 50 pounds. Costco offered temporary transitional work as a front-end supervisor, but Rose declined it and was placed on unpaid leave pending job-assessment meetings.

Costco held several meetings with Rose, considered whether she could perform the receiving-manager job, and provided weekly listings for positions at its Twin Cities-area warehouses. Costco concluded that permanent lifting assistance from coworkers was not feasible because it could not guarantee that assistance would always be available. Costco later identified a full-time cashier position with guaranteed lifting assistance and extended Rose’s leave while exploring that position. Rose declined the position and asked Costco to proceed with separating her employment.

Motion and governing standard

At the close of Rose’s evidence, Costco orally moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). The court could grant the motion if a reasonable jury lacked a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Rose. The court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Rose.

The parties agreed that three issues remained: whether Rose could perform the essential functions of the receiving-manager position with coworker lifting assistance; whether that assistance would be a reasonable accommodation; and whether Costco failed to provide that assistance or another reasonable accommodation.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the trial evidence established that lifting up to 50 pounds was an essential part of the receiving-manager position. Rose and a receiving-department colleague testified that lifting occurred constantly or frequently, including lifting items weighing more than 40 pounds into customers’ carts.

The court also found that Costco could not guarantee that other employees would always be available to help Rose lift. Rose’s four days of full-time work did not show that Costco could accommodate her restrictions because she testified that she did not lift anything during those days.

The court determined that Costco’s decision not to provide permanent lifting assistance was a legitimate personnel decision. It found no evidence of discriminatory intent and emphasized that Costco had made substantial efforts to identify work Rose could perform with her restrictions. The court noted that Rose ultimately declined a full-time cashier position that Costco said it could accommodate.

Disposition

The court held that no reasonable jury could conclude that Rose had established the elements of her reasonable-accommodation claim. It granted Costco’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice in favor of Costco Wholesale Corporation. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.