Palestino v. Verifone
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-01911
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 13
In Palestino v. Verifone, Judge Tostrud denied Verifone's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the complaint plausibly alleged both sexual harassment and retaliation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Employees who bring sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and employers defending those claims at the pleading stage. The ruling confirms that under Minnesota's broader harassment standard (as articulated in Kenneh), a complaint with detailed factual allegations of repeated sexually charged comments, unwanted physical contact, and close-in-time termination after a harassment report can survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Palestino v. Verifone, Inc., plaintiff Vanessa Palestino sued her former employer, alleging her supervisor sexually harassed her and that Verifone fired her in retaliation after she reported the harassment. The case was brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, asserting a hostile-work-environment theory and a reprisal theory. Verifone moved for judgment on the pleadings — a pre-trial motion arguing that even accepting all alleged facts as true, the complaint fails to state a viable legal claim.
The court reviewed the complaint's detailed allegations: that Palestino's supervisor, Dennis Mos, made repeated comments about her physical appearance, implied she was hired for her looks, asked whether she had tattoos in sexually intimate areas, kissed her cheek without consent, and regularly told her to use her sexual attractiveness to boost sales. Palestino reported the misconduct to human resources on September 18, 2025, and Verifone terminated her employment eight days later, on September 26, 2025. Verifone argued the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute harassment as a matter of law, and that the separation was voluntary rather than a firing.
Judge Tostrud denied Verifone's motion on both claims. On the harassment claim, the court found the complaint's allegations — viewed under the Minnesota Supreme Court's Kenneh standard, which allows for broader protections than federal law — plausibly showed conduct severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Palestino's employment. On the retaliation claim, the court rejected Verifone's argument that an email exchange showed a voluntary separation, finding that a firing and a separation agreement are not mutually exclusive and that the complaint's allegations must be accepted as true at this stage.
The detailed version
- Palestino v. Verifone · No. 0:26-cv-01911
- Eric Tostrud
- June 29, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Vanessa Palestino was hired by Defendant Verifone, Inc. as a senior sales executive in January 2025. In June 2025, Verifone hired Dennis Mos as senior director of sales, making him Palestino's direct supervisor. The complaint alleges a series of harassing incidents beginning in August 2025:
- At a work dinner on August 4, 2025, in Atlanta, Mos drank heavily, repeatedly commented on Palestino's appearance, told her she was successful only because of her looks, and asked whether she had tattoos in sexually intimate areas. - The following day at a client event, Mos drank heavily, publicly called Palestino "useless" and "not good for anything," made comments implying she was hired for her sexual attractiveness, and kissed her cheek without her consent. - After the Atlanta trip, Mos continued to comment on Palestino's appearance and regularly suggested she should leverage her sexual attractiveness to increase sales.
The complaint also alleges that Verifone knew or had reason to know Mos engaged in similar harassing behavior toward another female sales executive.
On September 18, 2025, Palestino emailed Verifone's human resources department to report Mos's conduct. The following day, a human resources representative interviewed her by phone and told her to take time off if she felt uncomfortable. On September 24, 2025, Verifone revoked Palestino's access to company systems and indicated it was preparing a severance agreement, stating her employment would be terminated whether or not she signed it. On September 26, 2025, Verifone terminated her employment.
Palestino filed suit on February 17, 2026. The complaint asserts two claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA): (1) sexual harassment/hostile work environment under Minn. Stat. § 363A.08, subdiv. 2; and (2) reprisal (retaliation) under Minn. Stat. § 363A.15.
Legal Standards
Verifone moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion is assessed under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim — the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. The complaint must state a claim that is plausible on its face, raising a right to relief above a speculative level. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
Sexual Harassment / Hostile Work Environment Claim
The MHRA prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, which includes sexual harassment. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must plead: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; and (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment. The harassment must be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.
The court applied the standard articulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., 944 N.W.2d 222 (Minn. 2020), which clarified that Minnesota courts are not bound by federal Title VII decisions on the severe-or-pervasive threshold, and that the standard must evolve with changing societal norms. Under Kenneh, courts must consider the totality of circumstances — frequency, severity, whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with job performance — and whether the environment was both objectively and subjectively offensive.
The court found the complaint plausibly satisfied this standard. Mos's conduct included sexually charged comments about Palestino's appearance, an unwanted physical contact (the cheek kiss), repeated implications that she was hired for her attractiveness, and regular suggestions that she use her sexuality to drive sales. The court found it plausible that a reasonable woman in Palestino's position would have believed she needed to submit to Mos's behavior to succeed at Verifone, and that Palestino herself perceived the environment that way.
The court rejected each of Verifone's four specific arguments:
- Text messages Palestino alleged were "inappropriate" were not relied upon by the court in finding the harassment claim plausible.
- Verifone's characterization of the Atlanta conduct as isolated and ambiguous was inconsistent with the complaint, which also alleged ongoing harassment after the trip; the court also noted that Kenneh recognized a single incident could be sufficient.
- Verifone's argument that the complaint identifies no tangible change in job duties, pay, or responsibilities was unsupported by any MHRA authority — severe or pervasive harassment alone can be enough.
- The six-week delay between the Atlanta events and Palestino's report might be relevant, but at this stage the court must draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, not Verifone's.
Reprisal (Retaliation) Claim
The MHRA's anti-reprisal provision prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose a forbidden practice or participate in an MHRA proceeding. A reprisal claim requires: (1) statutorily protected conduct by the employee; (2) an adverse employment action by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.
The court found the complaint plausibly alleged all three elements: Palestino reported the harassment (protected conduct); Verifone terminated her employment (adverse action); and the termination followed closely after the report (alleged causal connection).
Verifone argued, based on a September 24, 2025 email exchange between Palestino and a human resources representative, that the separation was voluntary — pointing to the fact that Palestino thanked the representative for the update and did not characterize the termination as involuntary. The court rejected this argument. The complaint alleges Palestino was fired. The email does not establish that allegation is false: firings and mutual separation agreements are not mutually exclusive, and the email itself stated the employment would end "regardless of if" Palestino signed the agreement. Accepting Verifone's characterization of the email at this stage would violate the rule that a complaint's allegations and reasonable inferences must be accepted as true.
Disposition
Verifone's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was denied. The case will proceed.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.