Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Decision Date18 October 2016
Docket NumberWD 78701
Parties Primitivo Soto, Respondent, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Daniel G. Curry, Sarah A. Brown, and Anthony E. LaCroix, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent

Larry Schumaker, Kansas City, MO Gerald L. Pauling and Bryan R. Bienias (both admitted pro hac vice), Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Appellant.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Alok Ahuja, Judges

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge

Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, entered following a jury verdict in favor of Mr. Primitivo Soto ("Soto") on his retaliation claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified. We also grant Soto's motion for attorney's fees, which was taken with the case.

Factual and Procedural Background1

Soto was hired by Costco on October 22, 1990. In 2006, Soto was promoted to assistant general manager of Costco's midtown Kansas City, Missouri, warehouse under warehouse manager Mr. Brett Mittone ("Mittone"). In 2008, Soto was transferred to Costco's Independence, Missouri, warehouse where he worked as assistant general manager, again under Mittone. Mittone's performance reviews of Soto while working as an assistant warehouse manager were favorable. In 2010, Soto noticed that Hispanic supervisors at the Independence warehouse under Mittone "weren't really getting support or guidance on how to do their jobs" and that "there was some definite higher expectations than normal." Soto saw that the Independence warehouse organizational chart contained very few Hispanics, and he noticed that Latino workers were "not supported, they weren't given the opportunity to get their jobs done, they weren't given the tools necessary for them to be successful."

On June 13, 2011, Soto was transferred to Costco's midtown Kansas City, Missouri, warehouse. In late July or early August 2011, Soto had a conversation with Mr. Clin Warren ("Warren"), the midtown warehouse general manager, about Soto's concerns that Latino employees at the Independence warehouse were treated unfairly, were passed over for promotions, and were discriminated against. Warren suggested that Soto contact Mr. Dan McMurray ("McMurray"), the regional operations manager in Chicago. Warren told Soto he would also contact McMurray because Soto's allegations were "pretty heavy," and Warren would have to "take them up the chain."

After Soto's conversation with Warren about what Soto perceived as discrimination by Mittone, there was a noticeable change in Soto's relationship with Warren. According to Soto, "I couldn't do anything right. And [Warren] was nitpicking pretty much everything I did ...."

By September 2011, Soto had not been contacted about his report to Warren, so he sent an email to Mr. John Gaherty, a Costco regional manager in Chicago, asking to talk about his concerns. Soto received a call from McMurray, who agreed to meet with Soto the next time he was in Kansas City. A couple of weeks later, Soto met with McMurray and requested that he investigate discrimination against Latinos at the Independence warehouse, specifically mentioning instances that he was personally aware of in which he believed Hispanic managers were being unfairly forced out of the company. McMurray "investigated" Soto's allegations by conversing with Mittone and, shortly thereafter, advised Soto that he had found no evidence of wrongdoing.

On Saturday, November 12, 2011, the midtown Costco warehouse had a "rapid receive" delivery from the Costco depot. Products in "rapid receive" or "blind receive" deliveries are unloaded and stocked, and receipt is not verified when the product comes off the truck. If receiving errors are discovered, adjustments are made by the store auditor and approved by the warehouse manager. On Monday, November 14, 2011, when the items received on November 12 were matched with the product tags, it was discovered that a seafood pallet was missing from the November 12 delivery. The receiving manager emailed the Costco depot and the other managers regarding the discrepancy.

On Monday, November 21, 2011, Mr. Larry Thompson ("Thompson"), the midtown Costco meat department manager, was inventorying the meat department. He asked Soto in passing, "Hey, what are we going to do with that fish? You know, are you going to count the stuff for now, wait and see if we can find it, what are we going to do?" Soto told him to tentatively count the pallet ($3,000 in seafood inventory) for right now. Thompson obtained a list of the missing seafood items and provisionally entered them into the inventory so they could easily be removed later if necessary.

That same day, Soto made contact with both Warren and the regional meat manager, Mr. Steve Tarantino ("Tarantino"), about the missing seafood pallet from the November 12th "rapid receive" delivery and sought their advice. In other words, Soto did not hide the inventory matter from his superiors; instead, he sought them out for advice on how to handle the situation. Both instructed Soto that the missing inventory should not be added to the store's inventory. Thereafter, and within one day of Soto's initial instruction to Thompson to tentatively include the missing seafood pallet in inventory, it was removed from the inventory. However, prior to this inventory adjustment, Thompson emailed Tarantino to notify him that the missing seafood pallet had been added to the meat department inventory at Soto's direction (prior to Soto inquiring with his superiors about how they wished for him to handle the missing inventory situation), even though it had not been received.

After Warren was informed that the missing seafood pallet had been counted in his store's inventory, Warren contacted McMurray to inform him that Soto had instructed Thompson to count the missing seafood pallet items in inventory. McMurray directed Warren to conduct an investigation. On November 25, 2011, Warren and Mr. Bruce Miles, general manager of Costco's Lenexa warehouse, interviewed Soto. On that date, Soto was issued an Employee Counseling Notice, which stated that Soto was suspended for two weeks, one week without pay, due to his violation of Costco's Manager's Standards of Ethics regarding falsification of company records, specifically, inventory forms. Thereafter, on December 13, 2011, Soto was demoted to a front-end manager position, which resulted in a significant decrease in compensation.

Soto lost approximately $85,000 in income as a result of the demotion. He also received a lower 401(k) match, and he no longer qualified for stock options or for a bonus based on company performance. Soto was impacted emotionally by the allegations that he was dishonest and unethical (especially where he had explained the inventory situation to his superiors and sought their advice on the same day he was notified of the seafood pallet issue) and by his resulting suspension and demotion.

In February 2012, Soto was transferred to Costco's Lenexa, Kansas, warehouse. Also in 2012, Soto filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. On May 6, 2013, Soto filed a petition for damages in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, alleging that Costco and Warren violated the MHRA when he was suspended and demoted to a position that paid less compensation in retaliation for his report of discrimination against Latino employees at Costco's Independence, Missouri, warehouse.

After a six-day trial, on February 4, 2015, the jury found in favor of Soto and against Costco and awarded Soto $250,000 in damages. On February 23, 2015, Soto's attorney filed a motion for attorney's fees, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The trial court entered its judgment on March 18, 2015, for Soto on the jury's verdict and awarded him $234,890 in attorney's fees; $10,077.14 in costs; $11,250 in pre-judgment interest; and post-judgment interest of 5% on the verdict and pre-judgment interest award, and 9% on the attorney's fees and costs awarded in the judgment.

Costco filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur, and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") on April 17, 2015. The trial court entered its order denying Costco's post-trial motions on May 27, 2015.

Costco timely appealed.

Deficient Jurisdictional Statement

Before addressing Costco's points on appeal, we must address the issue raised by Soto that Costco's jurisdictional statement is defective and violates Rule 84.04. Rule 84.04(a) requires that the appellant's brief contain a concise statement of the grounds on which jurisdiction of the appellate court is invoked. Rule 84.04(b) provides:

Jurisdictional Statement. Bare recitals that jurisdiction is invoked ‘on the ground that the construction of the Constitution of the United States or of this state is involved’ or similar statements or conclusions are insufficient as jurisdictional statements. The jurisdictional statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of Article V, section 3, of the Constitution whereon jurisdiction is sought to be predicated.

Costco's jurisdictional statement reads:

Costco Wholesale Group ("Costco") appeals from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri's May 27, 2015 Final Judgment and Order on Defendant's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and Defendant's Motion for New Trial or, in the Alternative, Remittitur, and the Order on Soto's Motion for Attorney's Fees. Jurisdiction lies in the Western District under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 477.070.

Costco's jurisdictional statement does not comply with Rule 84.04(b) because: (1) it does not clearly identify what final, appealable judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Williams v. City of Kan. City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2021
    ...prevailing party ...." § 213.111.2. "This includes fees incurred on appeal from the trial court's judgment." Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 502 S.W.3d 38, 58 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). Here, because we are affirming the judgment in favor of Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams is the prevailing party. T......
  • Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2018
    ...ex rel. Dean v. Cunningham , 182 S.W.3d 561, 567-68 (Mo. banc 2006) ; Wilkins , 519 S.W.3d at 538 ; Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 502 S.W.3d 38, 54-55 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). Mignone presented sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that she was damaged by each of the acts of retalia......
  • Williams v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2021
    ...that the trial court is better equipped to hear evidence and argument on this issue and determine the reasonableness of the fee requested." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we the cause to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine the reasonabl......
  • Hoeper v. Liley, WD 80015.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2017
    ...character of the legal services rendered," and "may determine attorney fees without the aid of evidence." Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 502 S.W.3d 38, 55 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Walsh v. City of Kansas , 481 S.W.3d 97, 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ). In this case, the $74,185.83 in att......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT