DeVriendt v. Costco

Background

Jessie DeVriendt, proceeding without a lawyer, initially sued a defendant identified as “Costco.” After the court directed him to provide more specific facts, he filed an amended complaint naming Costco Distribution Center, Efrain Adame, and Bret Hay. The amended complaint alleged that DeVriendt made three corporate reports of sexual harassment and a hostile or intimidating work environment in early 2023, that Adame and Hay did not properly investigate those reports, and that he was fired on March 10, 2023, in retaliation for reporting protected activity.

The amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. It also referred to an unspecified “other” legal basis, which the court treated as claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The opinion states that DeVriendt’s original complaint included an 86-page exhibit that appeared to contain materials from his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission file, but he did not attach that exhibit to the amended complaint or repeat its allegations there.

Motions and Legal Standards

Adame and Hay moved to dismiss, arguing that employment-discrimination laws do not impose liability on managers or supervisors individually. Costco Wholesale Corporation, identified in a footnote as the employer’s correct name, separately moved to dismiss on the ground that DeVriendt had not alleged facts supporting an employment-discrimination claim.

The court applied the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. It accepted factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in DeVriendt’s favor, but it disregarded legal conclusions presented as facts. The court also construed the self-represented complaint liberally while emphasizing that it could not create allegations or arguments for DeVriendt.

Claims Against Adame and Hay

The court held that Title VII does not impose personal liability on individual employees, including supervisors. It also held that the Minnesota Human Rights Act’s workplace-discrimination provisions apply to employers and do not make supervisors or co-workers individually liable. Because Adame and Hay were identified as a manager and an assistant manager, respectively, the court concluded that DeVriendt failed to state claims against them under either Title VII or the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The court therefore granted Adame and Hay’s motion to dismiss and dismissed DeVriendt’s claims against them.

Claims Against Costco

The court held that the amended complaint did not contain enough factual content to support an inference that Costco violated Title VII or the Minnesota Human Rights Act. DeVriendt alleged that he reported harassment and a hostile work environment, that his supervisors did not properly investigate, and that he was fired in retaliation. But the amended complaint did not mention his gender or explain how the alleged harassment, failure to investigate, or termination was connected to gender-based discrimination.

The court noted that DeVriendt did not allege that a female employee was treated differently in a similar situation or that other male employees experienced the same treatment. The court also considered allegations in the original complaint’s exhibit about an online video, comments and teasing by co-workers, alleged access to his phone conversations and text messages, and a broader alleged pattern of harassment. Even accepting those allegations as true, the court concluded that they did not plausibly show that the conduct was motivated by DeVriendt’s gender.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Adame and Hay’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED, Costco’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED, and the matter was DISMISSED with prejudice. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.