CLARDY v. MPW INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.
Filing
33
ORDER granting Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 9/12/2011. (TMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
JOHN CLARDY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MPW INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:11-cv-00035-RLY-WGH
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
This diversity action was initiated in Spencer Circuit Court and was properly
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Defendant MPW Industrial Services, Inc.
(“MPW”), now moves this court to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff, John Clardy
(“Clardy”), for failure to state a claim for relief against MPW pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is
GRANTED.
I.
Background
Clardy was hired as a safety inspector for MPW in August 2009. (Complaint ¶ 3).
His duties included “conducting health and safety audits of work activities to identify
unsafe acts and conditions.” (Id. ¶ 5). During the month of September 2009, Clardy
observed what he believed to be safety violations with three of MPW’s clients. (Id.).
Clardy reported these incidents to MPW as soon as he was made aware of them. (Id.).
1
On October 15, 2009, Clardy was terminated from his employment with MPW. (Id. ¶ 8).
II.
Motion to Dismiss Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of
claims for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Once the plaintiff
adequately states a claim, the claim “may be supported by showing any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Caldwell v. Jones, 513 F.Supp.2d 1000,
1003 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1960
(2007)). In making its determination, the court accepts the allegations in the complaint as
true, and it draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Mallett v. Wisconsin
Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, 130 F.3d 1245, 1248 (7th Cir. 1997); Porter v.
DiBlasio, 93 F.3d 301, 305 (7th Cir. 1996). In accordance with this standard, the facts
outlined above are accepted as Clardy alleges them.
III.
Discussion
“Indiana generally follows the employment-at-will doctrine that permits both the
employer and the employee to terminate the employment at any time for a good reason,
bad reason, or no reason at all.” Montgomery v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue University,
849 N.E.2d 1120, 1128 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotations omitted). However, the
Indiana Supreme Court has outlined three ways to rebut the presumption of at-will
employment, one of which is the public policy exception. Orr v. Westminster Village
2
North, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712, 718 (Ind. 1997). To fall within the public policy exception,1
a plaintiff must show that “a clear statutory expression of a right or duty is contravened”
and that the discharge was in retaliation for the exercise of that right or duty. Groce v. Eli
Lily & Co. 193 F.3d 496, 503 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718). The public
policy exception is not available to an at-will employee if the employee has remedies
available under other relevant statutes. Id. at 503-504 (holding that because the employee
could have pursued remedies under Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38.1, he did not state a
common law claim of retaliatory discharge); Chambers v. Walgreen Co., 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 99574, at *6 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 2009) (“This Court, as well, has held that ‘under
Indiana law, to assert a claim for wrongful discharge, there must be no other remedy
adequate to deter the employer’s conduct.’”) (quoting Boyer v. Canterbury Sch., Inc.,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45460, at *14 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 27, 2005)). The issue here is
whether Clardy has other statutory remedies available to him such that his common law
retaliatory discharge claim must be dismissed.
A.
Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38.1 Is Applicable to Clardy
Clardy’s first argument – that the IOSHA statute does not bar his claim – is
foreclosed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Groce v. Eli Lily & Co.,
supra.
1
The public policy exception also allows an employee to bring a retaliatory discharge
claim against his or her employer for filing a worker’s compensation claim. Groce, 193 F.3d at
502-03 (citing Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co., 413 N.E.2d 1054, 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)).
3
In Groce, the plaintiff (Groce) was terminated seven days after reporting a safety
violation to his employer. Groce, 193 F.3d at 498-499. Groce made complaints of
workplace health and safety violations only to his employer, id. at 499, and thus, did not
avail himself of the statutory remedy in Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38-1. The
Seventh Circuit held that in order to fall within the public policy exception to the at-will
employment doctrine, Groce had to show that “‘a clear statutory expression of a right or
duty [was] contravened’ and that his discharge was in retaliation for the exercise of that
right or duty.” Id. at 503 (citing Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 718). The Seventh Circuit held that
because the Indiana legislature created a specific statutory remedy for retaliatory
discharge for complaining of a health or safety issue by enacting Indiana Code Section
22-8-1.1-38-1, and because Groce could have pursued that remedy, Groce was precluded
from bringing a common law claim for retaliatory discharge. Id. at 504. The Court
therefore dismissed Groce’s retaliatory discharge claim. Id. at 504 (“Because Mr. Groce
did not pursue the remedies provided by the statute on which he wishes to rely . . . we
hold that the district court correctly determined that Mr. Groce has not stated a cognizable
claim for retaliatory discharge under Indiana law.”).
Like Groce, Clardy only reported the alleged safety violations he observed to his
employer, MPW. Clardy could have availed himself of the IOSHA discrimination statute,
Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38-1, but he did not. Unfortunately for Clardy, that was
his only remedy, and thus, his common law retaliatory discharge claim must be dismissed.
4
B.
The Nature of the Statutory Remedy is Irrelevant for Purposes of the
Public Policy Exception.
Clardy also argues that the IOSHA statute does not afford adequate remedies or
provide for a private right of action.
The statutory remedies afforded by Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38.1 would
have provided Clardy adequate relief because the statute expressly states that if the
complaint is ultimately successful, the aggrieved employee may recover “all appropriate
relief, including rehiring, or reinstatement of the employee to his former position with
back pay . . . .” Clardy seeks “reinstatement and/or other appropriate relief.” (Plaintiff’s
Response at 6). Thus, Indiana Code Section 22-8-1.1-38.1 provides the same remedy as
Clardy has acknowledged he is seeking in this lawsuit. As the Groce Court stated, “[t]he
statute could have provided adequate relief for an employee wrongfully discharged for
engaging in activity protected by IOSHA.” Groce, 193 F.3d at 504.
Clardy also argues that the statute does not afford him sufficient access to the court
system because the Commissioner of Labor institutes the lawsuit rather than the
aggrieved party. Again, this argument is foreclosed by the holding in Groce.
IV.
Conclusion
Because Clardy could have pursued adequate remedies under Indiana Code
Section 22-8-1.1-38.1 for his termination, the public policy exception to Indiana’s
employment-at-will doctrine does not apply. Consequently, he has not stated a claim for
which relief can be granted. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Docket # 9) is
5
hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED on this 12th day of September 2011.
__________________________________
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE
RICHARD
United States District Court
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Electronic Copies to:
Kyle Frederick Biesecker
BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
kfb@bdlegal.com
James Braden Chapman II
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
jchapman@beneschlaw.com
Robert E. Dezort
MILLISOR & NOBIL CO., L.P.A.
rdezort@laborlawyers.com
Peter S. French
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
pfrench@beneschlaw.com
Melanie L. Webber Schreiner
MILLISOR & NOBIL CO., LPA
mwebber@millisor.com
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?