White v. Amazon Web Services
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-03693
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In White v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., Judge Menendez upheld Magistrate Judge Bullard's decision allowing plaintiff Barbara White to add a retaliation claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act to her lawsuit against Amazon Web Services, rejecting AWS's arguments that White was not diligent enough and that the new claim was legally insufficient.
Employees who allege retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seek to amend their federal complaints after a scheduling deadline; parties and practitioners dealing with standards for amending pleadings, diligence requirements, and the proper standard for evaluating the futility of proposed amendments in federal court.
What happened
In White v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Case No. 24-cv-3693), Barbara White sued her employer Amazon Web Services (AWS) and later sought to add a reprisal (retaliation) claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) after the court's original deadline for amending complaints had passed. Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard granted White's request to amend, finding that she was diligent in pursuing the new claim, that AWS would not be unfairly harmed by the amendment, and that the new claim was legally viable. AWS objected and also filed a separate motion asking the district court to reverse those rulings.
AWS made two main arguments: first, that White was not diligent because she delayed her own discovery process and knew the underlying facts long before she sought to amend; and second, that the retaliation claim was legally insufficient and should not be allowed. AWS also argued that the court should evaluate the claim's viability using a stricter standard—similar to a summary judgment review using outside evidence—rather than the standard applied when a court decides whether a complaint is legally adequate on its face (known as the Rule 12(b)(6) standard).
Judge Menendez overruled AWS's objections and denied its motion. On the diligence question, the court applied a highly deferential standard of review for the magistrate judge's nondispositive ruling and found no clear error in Judge Bullard's conclusion that White had actively litigated her case and needed deposition testimony before she had a sufficient factual basis to assert the retaliation claim in federal court. On the legal sufficiency of the claim, Judge Menendez conducted an independent (de novo) review and agreed with Judge Bullard that White's amended complaint plausibly alleged all three elements of an MHRA retaliation claim. The court also firmly rejected AWS's argument that outside evidence should be considered in the futility analysis, noting that established caselaw requires courts to use the motion-to-dismiss standard—not the summary judgment standard—when deciding whether a proposed amendment is futile. The October 10, 2025 Order by Magistrate Judge Bullard was affirmed in full.
The detailed version
- White v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 24-cv-3693 (KMM/EMB)
- Katherine Menendez, United States District Judge
- December 5, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Barbara White filed suit against Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS). After the deadline set in the court's scheduling order for amending pleadings had passed, White moved for leave to amend her complaint to add a reprisal (retaliation) claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard granted that motion on October 10, 2025, finding: (1) White was diligent even though the motion was late; (2) AWS would not be prejudiced by the amendment; and (3) the proposed amended complaint stated a plausible MHRA reprisal claim.
AWS's Objections
AWS filed objections to Judge Bullard's Order and, in the alternative, a Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (a motion asking the court to rule in a party's favor based solely on the pleadings). AWS challenged two aspects of the Order:
1. Diligence / Good Cause: AWS argued White impeded her own ability to timely obtain discovery information by delaying written discovery by two months, taking her first deposition almost a year after filing her complaint, stipulating to a scheduling order amendment in June 2025 without requesting a new pleading amendment deadline, and knowing the relevant facts well before seeking to amend.
2. Adequacy of the MHRA Reprisal Claim (Futility): AWS argued the proposed amendment was futile—meaning it would not survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)—because: (a) White's reprisal claim elements were not adequately pleaded; (b) the MHRA does not apply because White lived outside Minnesota for nearly two years before her termination; and (c) the claim is barred by MHRA's one-year statute of limitations. AWS also argued the court should evaluate futility using a summary judgment standard (Rule 56), considering evidence from the discovery record, rather than the motion-to-dismiss standard.
Standard of Review
- On the diligence/good cause issue (a nondispositive matter): The district court applies a highly deferential standard, reversing only where the magistrate judge's decision is 'clearly erroneous or contrary to law.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). - On the futility/pleading adequacy issue (treated as dispositive): The district court reviews de novo (independently, without deference). D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3)(B).
Rulings
Diligence: Judge Menendez affirmed Judge Bullard's finding. The court found no clear error, noting that Judge Bullard had specifically addressed and rejected each of AWS's arguments. Most notably, Judge Bullard found that even if White had served written discovery immediately after the scheduling order issued, the amendment deadline was effectively unworkable. The court also found that White actively litigated her case throughout discovery and needed deposition testimony—obtained after document production was complete—before she had a sufficiently concrete factual basis to assert a reprisal claim under federal pleading standards (which are more demanding than the standards for administrative charges under Minnesota rules). The court rejected AWS's reliance on Reichel Foods, Inc. v. Proseal America, Inc., distinguishing it on the facts.
Adequacy of the MHRA Reprisal Claim: After de novo review, Judge Menendez agreed with Judge Bullard that the amended complaint plausibly alleged all three elements of an MHRA reprisal claim: (1) protected conduct; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection between the two. The court adopted Judge Bullard's reasoning without restating it.
Rejection of Summary Judgment Standard for Futility: The court flatly rejected AWS's argument that outside evidence from the discovery record should be considered in the futility analysis. The court found that Judge Bullard had in fact assessed the claim against the face of the amended complaint and had expressly declined to consider disputed factual interpretations. The court cited multiple District of Minnesota decisions confirming that futility is evaluated under the Rule 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss standard, not the Rule 56 summary judgment standard.
Orders:
- Defendant's Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 54): DENIED.
- Defendant's Objections (Dkt. 56): OVERRULED.
- Magistrate Judge Bullard's October 10, 2025 Order (Dkt. 50): AFFIRMED.
The case will proceed with White's amended complaint, including the MHRA reprisal claim.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.