Taylor et al v. Warrior Energy Services Corp

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM RULING re 9 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Warrior Energy Services Corporation d/b/a SPC Rentals filed by Warrior Energy Services Corp and 15 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Warrior Energy Services Corp. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 3/30/2017. (crt,Keifer, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
WAYLON TAYLOR, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2399

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES,
CORPORATION D/B/A SPC RENTALS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court are two Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Warrior Energy Services, Corporation d/b/a SPC Rentals (“SPC Rentals”). See Record
Documents 9 & 15. The first motion (Record Document 9) is addressed to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint (Record Document 3) and the second motion (Record Document 15)
is addressed to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Record Document 11). Plaintiffs
have opposed both motions. See Record Documents 12 & 17. For the reasons set forth
below, SPC Rentals’ first Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 9) is DENIED
AS MOOT and its second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 15) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Michael Brand, Devin Cappleman, William Crow, Michael Hicks, Jeffery
Huffman, Cephas Chad LaCroix, Elbert McKinney, James Tate, Waylon Taylor, Michael
Touchstone, and Roger Woods filed the instant civil action in 2015 against SPC Rentals
asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and Louisiana law.
See Record Document 11 at ¶¶ 1-2. SPC Rentals is in the business of performing labor
and furnishing services and materials, machinery and supplies in connection with oil and
gas drilling, completion and workover operations. See id. at ¶ 7. Under the name Superior

Pressure Control, SPC Rentals also provides labor, services, and equipment for oil and
gas well pressure control. See id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiffs were employed by SPC Rentals and
assigned to the Minden, Louisiana location. See id. at ¶ 1.1 Plaintiffs operated machinery,
tools, and equipment – primarily well pressure control equipment used in connection with
oil and gas drilling, well completion, and workover operations. See id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs
were either pump operators or grease operators. See id. at ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs were salaried. See id. at ¶ 21. In addition to salary, they were paid a day
rate for each day worked at a well site. See id. Plaintiffs were assigned 12 hour-shifts, but
allege that they actually worked for a longer period of time each shift. See id. at ¶ 15.
Plaintiffs allege that “to perform their duties as required, [they] regularly worked 13 to 14
hours each shift and not infrequently worked 16, 18 and 24 hours when assigned to
operate equipment and perform other labor at well site locations.” Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiffs
allege that SPC Rentals knew they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek at well site
locations. See id. at ¶ 20. Plaintiffs allege that SPC Rentals “assigned [them] to work
more than 40 hours in the workweek,” yet they were not paid for overtime work. Id. at ¶ 23.
Plaintiffs assert that SPC Rentals labeled them as “supervisors” to avoid paying overtime
compensation. Id. at ¶ 25. Plaintiffs maintain they were not supervisors. See id. at ¶ 26.
Based upon the above facts, Plaintiffs assert FLSA claims for failure to pay
overtime. They also assert a “failure to pay wages timely” claim under La. R.S. 23:633.
This Louisiana state law claim is based on SPC Rentals’ “failure to make timely payment
of [Plaintiffs’] salaries and day rates.” Id. at ¶¶ 37, 40-43.
1

SPC Rentals closed the Minden, Louisiana location in October 2015. See Record
Document 11 at ¶ 33.
Page 2 of 13

A group of Plaintiffs were subjected to “en masse” drug testing in July 2015. Id. at
¶¶ 44-45. These Plaintiffs “were corralled with approximately 40 of their co-workers in a
room at the Minden, Louisiana office, where the Defendant had arranged for collection
from the Plaintiffs[‘] hair, urine and breath samples . . . for substance abuse testing.” Id.
at ¶ 45. “Some of the . . . Plaintiffs were ordered to report to collection sites elsewhere for
the collection of the same type of samples.” Id. The drug testing was carried out under
the direct supervision of SPC Rentals’ Safety Director. See id. at ¶ 46. Plaintiffs allege
that “as a direct result of the manner in which the Safety Director conducted the drug
testing . . . , they were defamed and suffered invasions of privacy.” Id. at ¶ 50.
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 5, 2015. See Record
Document 3. SPC Rentals filed the first Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on November 10,
2015. See Record Document 9. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on November 24, 2015 and
likewise filed a Second Amended Complaint on that same day. See Record Documents
11 & 12. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs stated:
Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, the allegations
of their Original and First Amended Complaint, except as modified herein
below for claims asserted under La. R.S. 23:633. Plaintiffs amend their
complaint to submit more definite statements of their claims.
Record Document 11. SPC Rentals objects to the Second Amended Complaint because
it was filed without leave of court. See Record Document 15 & Record Document 20. In
opposing the second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs ask this Court to view the
Second Amended Complaint as a proposed pleading in the event it should not have been
accepted for filing. As leave to file amended complaints has been freely granted in related

Page 3 of 13

cases,2 this Court hereby GRANTS leave of court for the Second Amended Complaint to
be filed.
This Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and finds that the
incorporation by reference clause is sufficient. The adoption contains sufficient specificity
and clarity for this Court to determine the nature and extent of the incorporation. Thus, this
Court will be guided by the Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the first Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 9), which addressed the First Amended
Complaint, is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court will now proceed to its analysis of the
Second Amended Complaint and the second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Record
Document 15).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the requirements for

pleadings that state a claim for relief, requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The standard for the
adequacy of complaints under Rule 8(a)(2) changed from the old, more plaintiff-friendly “no
set of facts” standard to a “plausibility” standard found in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and its
progeny. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Under this standard, “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level ... on the

2

The related cases are Gregory Todd Cook, et al. versus Warrior Energy Services,
Corporation, d/b/a SPC Rentals, Civil Action No. 15-2195 and Ron Brothers, et al. versus
Warrior Energy Services, Corporation, d/b/a SPC Rentals, Civil Action No. 16-0272. Rule
12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are pending in both of these cases and rulings will be issued
in due course.
Page 4 of 13

assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. If a pleading only contains “labels and
conclusions” and “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” the pleading
does not meet the standards of Rule 8(a)(2). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citation omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court generally “may not go outside
the pleadings.” Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, 981 F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993). Courts
must also accept all allegations in a complaint as true. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949. However, courts do not have to accept legal conclusions as facts. See id.
Courts considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only obligated to allow
those complaints that are facially plausible under the Iqbal and Twombly standard to
survive such a motion. See id. at 678-679, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1950. If the complaint does
not meet this standard, it can be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See id. Such a dismissal ends the case “at the point of minimum expenditure
of time and money by the parties and the court.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. at
1966.
II.

FLSA Claims.
In its first Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, SPC Rentals argued that Plaintiffs failed

to plead specific factual allegations, such as dates of employment, rates of pay, or hours
of overtime worked in support of their FLSA claims. See Record Document 9-1 at 4-7.
SPC Rentals also maintained in its first motion that Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts
to support willfulness. See Record Document 9-1 at 7-8. The Court’s review of the
Second Amended complaint reveals that these deficiencies have been cured. Plaintiffs
Page 5 of 13

allege dates of employment, salary plus day rate pay structure, hours of overtime work,
and established workweek schedules. Plaintiffs also make factual allegations relating to
willfulness, namely that SPC Rentals (1) knew that Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek at well site locations; (2) regularly assigned Plaintiffs to work shifts “8
overtime hours to more than 55 overtime hours in a workweek”; (3) intentionally
misclassified Plaintiffs as supervisors to avoid paying overtime; and (4) was sued for similar
overtime violations in other various jurisdictions. Record Document 11 at ¶¶ 20, 22, 25,
29 & 30. At this stage, these factual allegations must be accepted as true and raise a right
to relief above the speculative level. The Court further notes that in its second Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, SPC Rentals did not reurge its arguments in support of
dismissing Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims. Accordingly, SPC Rentals’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.
III.

La. R.S. 23:633 Claim.
Plaintiffs assert claims against SPC Rentals for penalties and damages arising from

SPC Rentals’ failure to make timely payment of their salaries and day rates, as required
by La. R.S. 23:633.” Record Document 11 at ¶ 37. Plaintiffs contend that SPC Rentals
failed to pay base pay timely – “the appropriate payments were delayed by several weeks
and sometimes by a month or more.” Id. at ¶¶ 41, 43. Plaintiff did not plead a tort claim
for untimely wage payments.
At the outset, the Court holds that neither Section 633(A) not 633(B)3 grant a private
3

La. R.S. 23:633 provides, in pertinent part:

A.

It shall be the duty of each employer subject to this Section to inform
his employees at the time of hire what wages they will be paid, the
Page 6 of 13

right of action for enforcement. “The amended act does not provide a private right of action
to employees but an employer who violates [Section] 633(A) or (B) may be fined and, for
subsequent violations, subject to imprisonment.” Rick J. Norman, Louisiana Practice
Series, Louisiana Employment Law § 4.22. Additionally, to the extent the Section 633
claims are based on the same allegations that form Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, the claims are
duplicative and the FLSA preempts Louisiana state law. See Kidder v. Statewide Transp.,
Inc., 2013-594 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/18/13), 129 So. 3d 875, 879-880. Thus, SPC Rentals’
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ Section 633 claims and such
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IV.

Defamation Claims.
Plaintiffs assert that SPC Rentals defamed them in connection with the July 2015

drug testing. See Record Document 11 at ¶¶ 44, 50. More specifically, they allege:
Plaintiffs were defamed by Defendant’s report that it had drug tested
the Plaintiffs for “reasonable suspicion.” The statement that there had been
method in which they will be paid and the frequency of payment along
with any subsequent changes thereto. Except as provided under
Subsection B of this Section, any employer that fails to designate
paydays must pay his employees on the first and sixteenth days of
the month or as near as is practicable to those days.
B.

Every person, engaged in manufacturing of any kind, or engaged in
boring for oil and in mining operations, employing ten or more
employees, and every public service corporation, shall make full
payment to employees for services performed no less than twice
during each calendar month, which paydays shall be two weeks apart
as near as is practicable, and such payment or settlement shall
include all amounts due for labor or services performed during any
such payroll period and shall be payable no later than the payday at
the conclusion of the next payroll period, provided that, except in
cases of public service corporations, this Section shall not apply to the
clerical force or to salesmen.
Page 7 of 13

“reasonable suspicion” to test the Plaintiffs was false.
Plaintiffs were also defamed by Defendant’s communication to those
not privileged to receive the information reports of Plaintiffs’ unverified
positive test results that were later verified as negative.
...
Falsely reporting that a drug test was ordered due to “reasonable
suspicion” was defamatory.
...
Defendant’s communication to the DISA, VECTOR and similar
databases, and to others, that Plaintiffs had been tested for “reasonable
suspicion” gave the false impression that Defendant had strong objective,
particularized evidence as to each plaintiff that met the “reasonable
suspicion” criteria established by DISA and similar databases.
...
Defendant did not have “reasonable suspicion” to test the plaintiffs
and its report to DISA, VECTOR and others that there was “reasonable
suspicion” was false.
...
The false report was made with malice. Defendant knew that it was
not testing the Plaintiffs based upon a “reasonable suspicion” standard, yet
it still reported the tests as being based upon “reasonable suspicion.”
Id. at ¶¶ 57-58, 61, 68, 71, 73.
SPC Rentals seek protection under the Louisiana Drug Testing Statute, which
provides, in pertinent part:
B.

No cause of action for defamation of character, libel, slander, or
damage to reputation or privacy arises in favor of any person against
an employer or testing entity who has established a program of drug
or alcohol testing in accordance with this Chapter, unless:
(1)

The results of that test were disclosed to any person other than
the employer or testing entity, an authorized employee or
agent of the employer or testing entity, the tested employee, or
Page 8 of 13

the tested prospective employee;
(2)

The information disclosed was based on a false test result or
a failure to comply with the provisions of this Chapter;

(3)

All elements of an action for defamation of character, libel,
slander, or damage to reputation or privacy as established by
statute or civil law, are satisfied.

La. R.S. 49:1012(B). However, as noted by Plaintiffs, this Court hold that Section 1012 is
inapplicable because the Louisiana Drug Testing Statute does not apply to SPC Rentals.
See La. R.S. 49:1002(E) (“Applicability. . . . This Chapter shall not apply to any person,
firm, or corporation engaged or employed in the exploration, drilling, or production of oil or
gas in Louisiana or its territorial waters.”). SPC Rentals’ argues that “even if [it] is not
mandated to comply with the statute, it certainly may elect to establish a program in
accordance with the statute and thereby receive the benefit of the limitation on defamation
claims related to carrying out its program.” Record Document 15-1 at 19. The Court is
unconvinced by this argument, as SPC Rentals provides no case law to support their
position and such a reading of the statute would render the applicability provisions set forth
in Section 1002 meaningless. See McLane S., Inc. v. Bridges, 2011-1141 (La. 1/24/12),
84 So. 3d 479, 483 (“Courts should give effect to all parts of a statute and should not give
a statute an interpretation that makes any part superfluous or meaningless, if that result
can be avoided.”).
The Court must, therefore, analyze Plaintiffs’ defamation claim under ordinary tort
principles of Louisiana law. “Defamation is a tort which involves the invasion of a person’s
interest in his or her reputation and good name.” Costello v. Hardy, 2003-1146 (La.
1/21/04), 864 So. 2d 129, 139. “Four elements are necessary to establish a defamation
Page 9 of 13

cause of action:

(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an

unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault (negligence or greater) on the part of the
publisher; and (4) resulting injury.” Id. The fault requirement has evolved in jurisprudence
to require malice, whether it be actual or implied. See id. “Thus, in order to prevail on a
defamation claim, a plaintiff must prove ‘that the defendant, with actual malice or other
fault, published a false statement with defamatory words which caused plaintiff damages.’”
See id. at 139-140.
SPC Rentals submits that statements of opinion, beliefs, possibilities, potentialities,
speculation, and similar non-factual statements cannot be considered defamatory. See
Record Document 15-1 at 20. It argues that Plaintiffs’ defamation claims fail because
requiring “them to submit to a drug test based on a ‘suspicion’ of drug use cannot be
viewed as a matter of law as a statement of fact.” Id. at 20. Citing the Cambridge English
Dictionary, SPC Rentals maintains that a suspicion is an inkling, a notion, or a state of
feeling, but it is not a fact. See id.
This Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as to defamation and outlined
many of them above. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs allege that “reasonable
suspicion” in the context of drug testing is defined as “a belief based on objective facts
sufficient to lead a prudent person to conclude that a particular person performed a
particular act.” Record Document 11 at ¶ 62. Plaintiffs further allege that “before drug
testing can be conducted based upon ‘reasonable suspicion,’ Defendant’s policy requires
“strong evidence” of illegal drug use, which “must be documented.” Id. at ¶ 63. Under
Louisiana law, “a statement of opinion that is based totally on [a] subjective view and does
not expressly state or imply the existence of underlying facts is not actionable under
Page 10 of 13

Louisiana law.” Bussie v. Lowenthal, 535 So. 2d 378, 381 (La. 1988); Mashburn v. Collin,
355 So. 2d 879, 885-886 (La. 1977). Yet, “if a statement of opinion is accompanied by an
express statement of fact, that express statement of fact may be actionable if it is
defamatory, false, and concerns another. Moreover, if a statement of opinion implies that
certain facts exist, then such a statement, even though couched in terms of an opinion,
may give rise to a defamation action if the implied factual assertions are defamatory and
false.” Id. Based on these legal principles and the factual allegations plead, which must
be assumed true at this stage, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ defamation claims raise a
right to relief above the speculative level and survive Rule 12(b)(6) attack.
V.

Invasion of Privacy Claims.
Plaintiffs assert that SPC Rentals invaded their privacy in connection with the July

2015 drug testing. See Record Document 11 at ¶¶ 83-90. More specifically, they allege:
The manner in which Defendant conducted the observed sample
collections was unreasonable under drug testing standards and intruded
upon Plaintiffs’ physical privacy.
. . . Some Plaintiffs were required to submit to observed collection
samples that involved the exposure of their genitalia and buttocks in a
manner that could be viewed by other employees present, male and female.
...
Defendant invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy by presenting them in a false
light.
As stated in the defamation claim asserted above, a report from
Defendant that an employee was drug tested for “reasonable suspicion”
carries career-damaging connotation. The unprivileged communication of
a preliminary and unconfirmed positive report has the same negative
connotation. The fact that Plaintiffs were subjected to broad-panel testing
of hair, urine and breath, the false reports of preliminary, unconfirmed
positive results and that the tests had been ordered due to “reasonable
suspicion” when there was no “reasonable suspicion” presented Plaintiffs in
a false light and continues to do so.
Page 11 of 13

Id. at ¶¶ 83-86.
Under Louisiana law, the tort of invasion of privacy occurs in multiple ways, including
“when the defendant unreasonably intrudes upon the plaintiff’s physical solitude or
seclusion.” Jaubert v. Crowley Post-Signal, Inc., 375 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (La. 1979).
Louisiana law also recognizes a cause of action for “false light” invasion of privacy. Perere
v. Louisiana Television Broad. Corp., 97-2873 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/6/98), 721 So. 2d 1075,
1078. “The cause of action arises from publicity which unreasonably places the plaintiff
in a false light before the public. The publicity need not be defamatory in nature, but must
be objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances and must contain either
falsity or fiction.” Id. “Unlike a defamation action, it is not necessary that there be malicious
intent on the part of the defendant.” Id. Instead, in order to determine reasonableness,
courts are to balance the plaintiff’s interest in protecting his privacy from serious invasions
with the defendant’s interest in pursuing his course of conduct. See id.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as to invasion of privacy and
particularly notes the factual allegations regarding (1) exposure of genitalia and buttocks
in a manner that could be viewed by other employees present, both male and female; and
(2) SPC Rentals making false reports of preliminary, unconfirmed positive results and that
the tests had been ordered due to “reasonable suspicion” when there was no “reasonable
suspicion.” These factual allegations must be accepted as true at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage
of litigation. Based on the legal principles discussed above the factual allegations plead,
which must be assumed true, the Court holds that Plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claims raise
a right to relief above the speculative level and survive Rule 12(b)(6) attack.

Page 12 of 13

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, SPC Rentals’ first Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
(Record Document 9) is DENIED AS MOOT and its second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss (Record Document 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
motion is granted as to the La. R.S. 23:633 claim and denied as to the FLSA, defamation,
and invasion of privacy claims. The Court holds that Plaintiffs have plead to sufficient facts
to raise the right to relief above the speculative level as to their FLSA, defamation, and
invasion of privacy claims.
An order consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this the 30th day of March,
2017.

Page 13 of 13