Dorris v. Bi-State Development Agency
Filing
12
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 7 ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 7], is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is given 14 days from the date of this Opinion, Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint.( Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 5/9/2012.). Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 4/25/12. (CEL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM D. DORRIS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY )
d/b/a METRO TRANSIT,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. 4:12CV65 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc.
No. 7]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted. Plaintiff will be
given leave to amend his Complaint.
Factual Background
Plaintiff filed his Petition in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,
Missouri on November 30, 2011. Defendant removed the matter to this Court
based on the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, claiming that Plaintiff’s cause
of action was completely preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. § 185.
Plaintiff’s Petition alleges that he was employed by Defendant pursuant to a
written contract between Defendant and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached this collective bargaining agreement by
refusing and failing to acknowledge that the drug testing procedure done on
Plaintiff was done in violation of federal and state regulations. Plaintiff further
alleges that Defendant’s actions in terminating his employment in December, 2006
also breached the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff alleges that he
exhausted his administrative and grievance procedures under the contract.1
Discussion
Standard of Review
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court
must take as true the alleged facts and determine whether they are sufficient to
raise more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007). The Court does not, however, accept as true any allegation
that is a legal conclusion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The
complaint must have “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)) and then Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957),
abrogated by Twombly, supra); see also Gregory v. Dillard’s Inc., 565 F.3d 464,
473 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 628 (2009). While detailed factual
1
Defendant asserts that it has no record of any exhaustion, however, for the purposes of
this motion, Defendant assume said exhaustion.
-2-
allegations are not necessary, a complaint that contains “labels and conclusions,”
and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is not sufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The complaint must
set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; C.N. v. Willmar Pub.
Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 629-30 (8th Cir.2010); Zutz v.
Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588
F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If
the claims are only conceivable, not plausible, the complaint must be dismissed.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In considering a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be read as
a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in
isolation, is plausible.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594. The issue in considering such a
motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff
is entitled to present evidence in support of the claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
-3-
Defendant argues that under the collective bargaining agreement,2 it was
allowed to make reasonable rules and regulations for the conduct of its employees,
and one such rule was Defendant’s Drug & Alcohol Policy.3 Moreover, Defendant
observes that it is required by federal law to implement and maintain a drug and
alcohol policy. 49 C.F.R. Part 40, 49 C.F.R. Part 655. Defendant’s Policy states
that “strict compliance with Metro’s Alcohol and Drug Policy and Education and
Testing Program is a condition of employment.” Violations oft he Policy lead to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
Under the collective bargaining agreement, any employee that is discharged,
suspended or otherwise disciplined may file a grievance in writing within five
days after such action. Any questions relating to grievances or the interpretation
of any provision of the collective bargaining agreement between Defendant and
the Union or employees which cannot be resolved amicably are required to be
submitted to arbitration. The parties agreed in the collective bargaining agreement
that arbitration is final and binding.
2
Defendant has attached a copy of the collective bargaining agreement to its motion.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is restricted to analyzing the sufficiency of the pleadings alone.
However, the Court may consider those documents which are “necessarily embraced by the
pleadings.” See Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.1999) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the pleadings embrace the collective
bargaining agreement between Defendant and Amalgamated.
3
The Drug & Alcohol Policy is also attached to Defendant’s motion, which the Court,
again, can consider. See footnote 2.
-4-
In order for an employee to bring an individual action against his employer
for a breach of a collective bargaining agreement, the employee must bring a
“hybrid” action under Section 301; the employee must allege and prove that his
union breached its duty of fair representation. DelCostello v. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163 (1983);Waldron v. The Boeing
Company, 388 F.3d 591, 593 (8th Cir. 2004).
Although Plaintiff alleges that he exhausted his contractual procedures
before filing his suit, he fails to allege that his Union breached its duty of fair
representation. As such, Plaintiff’s Petition fails to state a cause of action.
DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 163.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations for Section 301 actions. Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, hybrid claims are subject to a six month limitation
period. Although Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s action is barred, the Court is
not at liberty to make such a ruling on a motion to dismiss. Defendant’s
attachment of affidavits supporting its argument are not properly before the Court
at this time. While it very well may be that Plaintiff’s action is barred, at this stage
of the litigation, Plaintiff must be given the opportunity to allege the requirements
of a hybrid action and assert that the action is timely.
-5-
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no allegations of any breach of the Union’s
duty of fair representation, nor that such an action is timely.
The Court will allow Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint to cure the
defects of his original Petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [Doc.
No. 7], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is given 14 days from the date
of this Opinion, Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2012.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?