Amarosa v. Doctor John's et al

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 99 Motion to Dismiss Party John Coil. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/25/14 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
HANNAH R. AMAROSA,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS JOHN COIL

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-CV-676 DN
DOCTOR JOHN’S INC., KEN GREENTREE
and JOHN COIL,

District Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.
Defendants Doctor John’s, Inc. and John Coil filed a motion 1 requesting dismissal of
John Coil, an individual defendant. They assert that John Coil is not a subject of the remaining
cause of action, which alleges violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). 2 The
motion is denied.
DISCUSSION
John Coil was specifically mentioned by name in Plaintiff’s second cause of action for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act 3 and in Plaintiff’s third cause of action for
defamation. 4 Both those claims have been dismissed. 5 Plaintiff’s first cause of action for
violation of the EPPA pleads “for relief and judgment against the Defendants . . . .” 6 While the

1

Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action, docket no. 99, filed July 17, 2014.

2

29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq.

3

29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

4

Complaint at 12-13, ¶¶ 73, 75, 77, 79, and 81-82, docket no. 2, filed July 22, 2011.

5

Memorandum Decision and Order [dismissing Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Defamation], docket no. 84,
filed July 2, 2014; docket text order, docket no. 113, filed July 21, 2014.
6

Complaint at 11.

cause of action does not include his name, the first cause of action pleads for relief against John
Coil.
Under the EPPA, “[t]he term ‘employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly
in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee.” 7 This has
been interpreted broadly, and includes (among others) a person who “decided whether the
examined employee would be subjected to disciplinary action.” 8 Because the proof at trial may
show that John Coil affirmed Plaintiff Amarosa’s termination, and concealed the polygraph
issues related to her termination, 9 he may qualify as an employer under the EPPA. Of course, the
proof at trial will determine whether this issue will be submitted to the jury.
ORDER
Because the first cause of action pleads for relief against John Coil and because the EPPA
is broad enough to permit a claim to be stated against Coil,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss John Coil 10 is DENIED.
Dated July 25, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge

7

29 U.S.C. § 2001(2).

8

Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721, 727 (5th Cir. 2002).

9

Complaint ¶¶ 46, 75, 77 and 82.

10

Motion to Dismiss Second Cause of Action, docket no. 99, filed July 17, 2014.

2