DeVriendt v. Costco

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 3, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jessie DeVriendt, Civ. No. 23-3701 (PAM/JFD)

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Costco Distribution Center, Efrain Adame,
General Manager, and Bret Hay, Assistant
Manager,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Docket Nos.
22, 26.) For the following reasons, the Motions are granted and Plaintiff Jesse DeVriendt’s
claims are dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff Jesse DeVriendt, proceeding pro se, filed this
lawsuit against a single Defendant—“Costco.” (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) After being
directed to file an amended pleading more specifically asserting the factual basis for his
claims, DeVriendt filed an Amended Complaint on December 22, 2023. (Docket No. 4.)
The amended pleading changes the corporate Defendant’s name to Costco Distribution
Center and names two additional Defendants, Efrain Adame and Bret Hay.
DeVriendt asserts in the amended pleading that he “filed corporate reports of sexual
harassment and being in a hostile/intimidating work environment” on three occasions in
early 2023, but that Adame and Hay “did not properly investigate” DeVriendt’s claims.
(Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) DeVriendt contends that he was fired on March 10, 2023, “in
retaliation to me reporting protected activity” and that “[t]his happened at Costco
Distribution Center.” (Id.) There are no further factual allegations in the Amended

Complaint.
DeVriendt raises a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming
discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. (Id. ¶ 3.)
The Amended Complaint also invokes an unspecified “other” basis for DeVriendt’s claims
for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. As discussed in more
detail below, the Court will interpret DeVriendt’s Amended Complaint as relying on

Minnesota’s companion to Title VII, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), for
these claims.
Defendants have separately moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants
Adame and Hay argue that statutory liability for employment discrimination does not lie
against managers or supervisors, but only against an individual’s employer. Defendant

Costco Wholesale Corporation1 (“Costco”) contends that DeVriendt has failed to allege
any facts to support a claim for employment discrimination against Costco.
DeVriendt filed an opposition memorandum referencing only Costco’s Motion. It
is thus not apparent that DeVriendt intends to pursue any claims against Adame and Hay.

1 DeVriendt acknowledges that he incorrectly sued his former employer as Costco
Distribution Center, rather than by its correct name of Costco Wholesale Corporation.
(Docket No. 34 at 2.) Because DeVriendt’s claims fail as a matter of law, this error is not
relevant to the Motions’ resolution. If DeVriendt were allowed to proceed, however, he
would be required to re-plead to name the correct Defendant or Defendants he intends to
sue.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing whether a Complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted,

this Court must accept as true all of the factual allegations in the Complaint and draw all
reasonable inferences in DeVriendt’s favor. Aten v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,

511 F.3d 818, 820

 
(8th Cir. 2008).  Although the factual allegations in the Complaint need not be detailed, 
they must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”  Bell Atl. 
Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555

 (2007).  The Complaint must “state a claim to relief 
that is plausible on its face.”

Id. at 570

.  In assessing the sufficiency of the Complaint, the 

Court  may  disregard  legal  conclusions  that  are  couched  as  factual  allegations.    See 
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 679

 (2009).  Pro se complaints are to be construed 
liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced.  See 
Stone v. Harry,

364 F.3d 912, 914

 (8th Cir. 2004).                        
DeVriendt’s  pleadings  lack  any  factual  specificity  whatsoever.    His  original 

Complaint  attached  an  86-page  “exhibit”  that  appears  to  be  his  Equal  Employment 
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) file, including his charge of discrimination, Costco’s 
response to the charge, including numerous exhibits outlining the basis for Costco’s 
decision to terminate DeVriendt’s employment, and DeVriendt’s response to Costco’s 
statement  to  the  EEOC.    (Docket  No.  1-1.)    As  previously  explained  to  DeVriendt, 

however, this exhibit is not part of his pleadings, to the extent that he intended it to be so.  
Moreover, DeVriendt did not include this exhibit with his Amended Complaint, which is 
now the operative pleading, nor did he repeat any of the allegations in the exhibit in support 
of the claims in the Amended Complaint.  The Court will give DeVriendt’s pleadings and 
arguments the liberal construction to which they are entitled, but it is not the Court’s 
responsibility to plead or argue DeVriendt’s case for him.  See Pliler v. Ford,

542 U.S. 225, 231

 (2004) (“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se 
litigants.”).                                                             
A.   Adame and Hay                                                        
According to the Amended Complaint, Adame was a manager and Hay an assistant 
manager at Costco’s Distribution Center.  (Docket No. 4 ¶ 10.)  DeVriendt claims that these 
individuals  failed  to  properly  investigate  his  reports  to  the  corporation  regarding  an 

allegedly hostile work environment and alleged sexual harassment.  (Id.)  But “a supervisor 
may not be held liable under Title VII.”  Roark v. City of Hazen,

189 F.3d 758, 761

 (8th 
Cir. 1999).  Indeed, Title VII does not impose liability on individuals at all; Title VII is 
directed to the employing entity.  See Spencer v. Ripley Cnty. State Bank,

123 F.3d 690, 691

 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that “individual employees are not personally liable under Title 

VII”).  DeVriendt has therefore failed to state a Title VII claim as to Adame and Hay. 
The  MHRA’s  prohibition  on  workplace  discrimination  also  applies  only  to 
employers.    Minn.  Stat.  §§  363A.08(2),  363A.03(16).    As  with  Title  VII,  neither 
supervisors nor co-workers can be individually liable under the MHRA.  Waag v. Thomas 
Pontiac, Buick, GMC, Inc.,

930 F. Supp. 393, 406-08

 (D. Minn. 1996) (Lebedoff, M.J.).  

DeVriendt has failed to state a claim under the MHRA against Adame and Hay.  Adame 
and Hay’s Motion is granted and DeVriendt’s claims against them are dismissed. 
B.   Costco                                                               
To sufficiently plead a claim against Costco, DeVriendt must set forth sufficient 

“factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that [Costco] is liable 
for the misconduct alleged.”  Blomker v. Jewell,

831 F.3d 1051, 1055

 (8th Cir. 2016) 
(quotation  omitted).    In  other  words,  “the  complaint  must  include  sufficient  factual 
allegations to provide the grounds on which the claim rests.”  Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc.,

565 F.3d 464, 473

 (8th Cir. 2009).   The Court “is not required to divine [DeVriendt’s] 
intent and create claims that are not clearly raised, and it need not conjure up unpled 

allegations to save a complaint.”

Id.

 (quotations omitted).              
The Amended Complaint falls far short of pleading any factual content that would 
allow the Court to draw an inference that Costco violated either Title VII or the MHRA.  
DeVriendt does not describe any factual background whatsoever, merely stating that he 
“filed corporate reports of sexual harassment and being in a hostile/intimidating work 

environment” but his supervisors “did not properly investigate” those reports.  These bare 
facts—which are the total of the factual averments in the Amended Complaint—do not 
suffice to plausibly plead an essential element of DeVriendt’s claims:  that the alleged 
discrimination, harassment, or retaliation was based on his gender.  See Univ. of Tex. Sw. 
Med. Ctr. v. Nassar,

570 U.S. 338, 343

 (2013) (A Title VII plaintiff must “show that the 

motive to discriminate was one of the employer’s motives . . . .”).  “In the context of a Rule 
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this requirement is met by factual allegations plausibly showing 
that  the  defendant  manifested  bias  relevant  to  the  adverse  employment  action.”  
Warmington v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Minnesota,

455 F. Supp. 3d 871

, 882 (D. Minn. 
2020) (Tostrud, J.).                                                      
DeVriendt has not set forth any facts from which the Court could infer that “the 

motive to discriminate on the basis of [his] sex was one of [Costco’s] motives” in failing 
to investigate his reports of harassment and hostile work environment.

Id.

  DeVriendt does 
not mention his gender at all in the Amended Complaint, much less explain how the few 
facts in the pleading are tied to his gender or a to motive to discriminate against him on the 
basis of his gender.  As Costco argues, DeVriendt does not allege that a female employee 
was treated differently than he was in a similar circumstance, or that other male employees 

also suffered the same fate he alleges.  In short, “the [Amended Complaint], read as a 
whole, does not plausibly give rise to the inference of discrimination on the basis of sex as 
the reason for [DeVriendt’s] termination.”  Warmington v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of 
Minnesota,

998 F.3d 789, 798

 (8th Cir. 2021).                             
Including the exhibits attached to the Complaint as part of the factual allegations 

does not change this conclusion.  DeVriendt describes what he believes was a conspiracy 
to post on the internet a video of him masturbating in his apartment in 2019, before he 
began working at Costco.  (Docket No. 1-1 at 69.)  The consequences from that video’s 
online release ostensibly included comments and teasing by his Costco co-workers about 
the video’s subject.  (Id.)  In addition, DeVriendt believes that others were listening to his 

phone conversations and had access to his text messages.  (Id. at 70.)  DeVriendt ultimately 
reported to Costco what he says was three years of sexually harassing behavior, but the 
harassment did not stop.  (Id.)  Indeed, DeVriendt believes that the “whole community [of 
Owatonna] (population 28,000 people) is backing up Costco & trying to shut me down.”  
(Id.)                                                                     

But none of these allegations, even accepted as true, plausibly pleads that the 
conduct of DeVriendt’s co-workers or Costco’s response to his complaints was motivated 
by  DeVriendt’s  gender.    The  failure  to  plead  any  fact  that  plausibly  suggests  a 
discriminatory motive is fatal to any claim under either Title VII or the MHRA.   
CONCLUSION                                                                
DeVriendt has failed to state any claim on which relief can be granted.  Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                                                
1.   Defendants  Adame  and  Hay’s  Motion  to  Dismiss  (Docket  No.  22)  is 
     GRANTED;                                                        
2.   Defendant Costco’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 26) is GRANTED; and  
3.   This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.                        

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                      

Date:        June 3, 2024                                                 
                                    s/Paul A. Magnuson               
                              Paul A. Magnuson                       
                              United States District Court Judge