Miller v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2022
• Docket Number: 6:22-cv-03262-RK
• Parties: L. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

L. MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 6:22-cv-03262-RK

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

December 27, 2022

ORDER

ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE.

Before the Court is Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation's motion to dismiss Plaintiff L. Miller's age-discrimination claim brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), § 213.010 et seq., RSMo. (Doc. 11.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 12, 14, 15.) Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his age-discrimination claim and therefore it is entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court agrees. After careful consideration and for the reasons explained below, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is GRANTED and Count I is DISMISSED without prejudice and

(2) Defendant's request for an extension of time to file an answer as to Count II is GRANTED Defendant's answer to Count II is due within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order

I. Background^[1]

On or about June 12, 2021, Plaintiff applied for a pharmacy manager position at Costco Wholesale Corp. d/b/a Costco Wholesale #1486, in Springfield, Missouri. Plaintiff was 57 years old. Two days later, Plaintiff was contacted by Michael Gorski to discuss his background and experience, and to schedule an interview. On or about July 29, 2021, Plaintiff was interviewed for the position in person by Mr. Gorski. The interview lasted for about 45 minutes. At the time of

1

the interview Plaintiff was using a knee scooter due to the amputation of his lower leg. Approximately two days after the interview, Plaintiff was notified by email that he would not be offered the position.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against him by not hiring him for the pharmacy manager position due to his age and disability. Plaintiff alleges he received a right-to-sue letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”) on August 12, 2022.^[2] Plaintiff filed a two-count employment-discrimination complaint against Defendant in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, on August 30, 2022. (See Doc. 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts claims under the MHRA for age discrimination (Count I) and disability discrimination (Count II). (Id.)

II. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court “accept[s] the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Cole, 599 F.3d at 861 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

In considering a motion to dismiss the Court is generally limited to the face of the pleadings; the Court may also consider materials attached to or necessarily embraced by the complaint or matters of public record...