King v. XPO Logistics et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss: plaintiff's first, fifth and ninth causes of action are dismissed with prejudice and the eighth cause of action is dismissed without prejudice; granting in part 19 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/18/17 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
NIKKI SALAZAR KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
XPO LOGISTICS, INC.; CASEY MCKELL,
in his capacity as employee/management for
XPO and also as an individual; LARIANNE
JENSEN, in her capacity as
employee/management for XPO and also as an
individual,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
[17] MOTION TO DISMISS AND
PLAINTIFF’S [19] MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT

Case No. 2:16-CV-434-DN
District Judge David Nuffer

Defendants.

This case involves an employee’s claims against her former employer and supervisors for
sexual harassment, discrimination based on gender and religion, retaliation, wrongful
termination, assault and battery, and unpaid wages. 1 Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc. (“XPO”)
and Larianne Jensen (“Jensen”) seek dismissal of Plaintiff Nikki Salazar King’s (“King”) Title
VII sexual harassment and discrimination claims against Jensen, as well as King’s common law
wrongful termination and accounting claims against XPO. They allege she fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 2 King opposed the Motion to Dismiss and moved to amend
her complaint in an attempt to rectify the pleading deficiencies argued by XPO and Jensen. 3
Defendant Casey McKell, though served, takes no part in these motions.

1

Complaint, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

2

Motion to Dismiss of Defendants XPO Logistics Inc. and Larianne Jensen (“Motion to Dismiss”), docket no. 17,
filed July 29, 2016.
3

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (“King’s Response”), docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16,
2016; Motion and Memorandum in Support to Amend Complaint (“Motion to Amend Complaint”), docket no. 19,
filed Aug. 12, 2016.

Because Tenth Circuit precedent precludes individual liability for supervisors on
Title VII claims; because King’s common law claim for wrongful termination is preempted by
the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (“UADA”); and because King has failed to allege a cognizable
claim for accounting; XPO and Jensen’s Motion to Dismiss 4 is GRANTED. King’s Motion to
Amend Complaint 5 is GRANTED IN PART with direction that King file an amended complaint
that is consistent with the analysis and conclusions of this Memorandum Decision and Order.

Table of Contents
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 3
XPO and Jensen’s Motion to Dismiss ...................................................................................... 3
Tenth Circuit precedent precludes individual liability for supervisors on Title VII claims 3
King’s common law claim for wrongful termination is preempted by the UADA ............ 4
King has failed to allege a cognizable claim for accounting .............................................. 6
King’s Motion to Amend Complaint ........................................................................................ 9
King’s request for leave to amend her Complaint to remove her claims against Jensen
individually is moot .................................................................................................... 11
Leave is granted for King to amend her Complaint to assert a common law wrongful
termination claim against XPO relating to her efforts to require XPO to abide by
Utah labor laws ........................................................................................................... 11
Leave is granted for King to amend her Complaint to assert a claim for breach of
employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing against XPO ........... 14
King is granted leave to amend her Complaint regarding her claims against Casey
McKell ........................................................................................................................ 17
ORDER ......................................................................................................................................... 19

4

Docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016.

5

Docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

2

DISCUSSION
XPO and Jensen’s Motion to Dismiss
A defendant is entitled to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure when the complaint, standing alone, is legally insufficient to state a claim for which
relief may be granted. 6 When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the
thrust of all well-pleaded facts in the complaint is presumed, but conclusory allegations need not
be considered. 7 A court is not bound to accept the complaint’s legal conclusions and opinions,
whether or not they are couched as facts. 8
Tenth Circuit precedent precludes individual liability for supervisors on Title VII claims
XPO and Jensen seek dismissal of King’s first cause of action for sexual harassment and
fifth cause of action for sexual discrimination based on gender against Jensen. 9 King’s claims
allege that Jensen violated Title VII by committing impermissible gender discrimination,
engaging in sexual harassment and creating a hostile and abusive work environment, and
retaliating against King for reporting her concerns and allegations to XPO managers and the
United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). 10 XPO and Jensen argue that King’s
claims fail as a matter of law because Tenth Circuit precedent precludes individual liability for
supervisors on Title VII claims. 11 King acknowledges this precedent and has agreed to dismiss

6

FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999).

7

Cory v. Allstate Ins., 583 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009).

8

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Brown v. Zavaras, 63
F.3d 967, 972 (10th Cir. 1995).
9

Motion to Dismiss at 3, docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016; Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (“Defendants’ Reply”) at 2-3, docket no. 21, filed Aug. 29, 2016.
10

Complaint ¶¶ 66-74, 96-103, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

11

Motion to Dismiss at 3, docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016; Defendants’ Reply at 2-3, docket no. 21, filed Aug. 29,
2016.

3

her claims against Jensen, but requests that the dismissal be without prejudice on the chance that
a change in controlling law may occur during the pendency of the case. 12
“Under long-standing [Tenth C]ircuit precedent, supervisors and other employees may
not be held personally liable under Title VII.” 13 This is “the majority view that, taken as a whole,
the language and structure of … Title VII … reflect[s] the legislative judgment that statutory
liability is appropriately borne by employers, not individual supervisors.” 14 Title VII has “broad
remedial purposes and should be interpreted liberally, but that cannot trump the narrow, focused
conclusion [courts must] draw from the structure and logic of the statute[.]” 15 Therefore,
“personal capacity suits against individual supervisors are inappropriate under Title VII.” 16
Bound by Tenth Circuit precedent, King’s Title VII claims against Jensen fail to state a
claim as a matter of law. King’s speculation that a change in controlling law may occur during
the pendency of this case is not a sufficient legal basis to dismiss the claims without prejudice.
Therefore, King’s first cause of action for sexual harassment and fifth cause of action for sexual
discrimination based on gender against Jensen 17 is dismissed with prejudice .
King’s common law claim for wrongful termination is preempted by the UADA
XPO and Jensen seek the dismissal of King’s eighth cause of action for wrongful
termination against XPO because the claim is preempted by the UADA. 18 King’s claim alleges
that XPO impermissibly terminated her employment in retaliation for her reporting

12

King’s Response at 3-4, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

13

Williams v. W.D. Sports, N.M., Inc., 497 F.3d 1079, 1083 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007).

14

Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 901 (10th Cir. 1996).

15

Id. (internal quotations and punctuation omitted).

16

Id.

17

Complaint ¶¶ 66-74, 96-103, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

18

Motion to Dismiss at 3-4, docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016; Defendants’ Reply at 3-4, docket no. 21, filed Aug.
29, 2016

4

discrimination and harassment based on gender and religion to the EEOC and to designated
officials of the State of Utah. 19 King has agreed to dismiss and modify the claim to remove
reference to preempted discriminatory acts. 20 However, King argues that XPO also engaged in
wrongful termination by firing her in retaliation for her efforts to require XPO to abide by labor
laws relating to her salary and employment documentation and accounting information. She
maintains this claim is not preempted by the UADA. 21
The UADA provides that its procedures:
are the exclusive remedy under state law for employment discrimination based
upon: (a) race; (b) color; (c) sex; (d) retaliation; (e) pregnancy, childbirth, or
pregnancy-related conditions; (f) age; (g) religion; (h) national origin; (i)
disability; (j) sexual orientation; or (k) gender identity. 22
The Utah Supreme Court has held that “the plain language of [the UADA] reveals an explicit
legislative intention to preempt all common law remedies for employment discrimination.” 23
Thus, the UADA’s “‘exclusivity provision’ unambiguously indicates that the UADA preempts
‘common law causes of action’ for employment discrimination based on the ‘specific grounds’ it
lists.” 24 The Utah Supreme Court further held that “[e]ven if the UADA lacked an explicit
statement of preemptive intent, [the] holding that it preempts common law remedies for
employment discrimination would not change because a clear preemptive intent can be implied
from the statute’s structure and purpose.” 25

19

Complaint ¶¶ 111-15, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

20

King’s Response at 4, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

21

Id. at 4-5.

22

UTAH CODE ANN. § 34A-5-107(16).

23

Gottling v. P.R. Inc., 2002 UT 95, ¶ 9, 61 P.3d 989.

24

Id.

25

Id. ¶ 12.

5

While King attempts to avoid preemption by arguing that XPO terminated her
employment in retaliation for her efforts to require XPO to abide by labor laws relating to her
salary and employment documentation and accounting information, 26 King’s Complaint contains
no factual allegations to support this type of retaliatory firing. 27 Rather, the Complaint alleges
only harassment, discrimination, and retaliatory firing on the basis of gender and religion. 28 The
alleged wrongful termination on these bases falls precisely in the scope of common law claims
that are expressly preempted by the UADA. 29 Therefore, King’s eighth cause of action for
wrongful termination against XPO 30 fails to state a claim as a matter of law. However, based on
King’s argument and assertions that an unpleaded factual basis exists which could support a
common law claim for wrongful termination that is not preempted by the UADA, 31 the dismissal
of her claim 32 is without prejudice.
King has failed to allege a cognizable claim for accounting
XPO and Jensen also seek the dismissal of King’s ninth cause of action for accounting
against XPO because accounting is a remedy, not a separate cause of action. 33 King opposes the
Motion to Dismiss arguing that an accounting is not always a form of relief that is dependent on

26

King’s Response at 4-5, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

27

Complaint, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016

28

Id.

29

UTAH CODE ANN. § 34A-5-107(16) (2016); Gottling, 2002 UT 95, ¶9; see also Stewart v. IM Flash Techs., LLC,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53713, *9-10 (D. Utah Apr. 20, 2016); Giddings v. Utah Transit Auth., 107 F.Supp.3d 1205,
1211-12 (D. Utah May 13, 2015); McNeil v. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72998, *11-12
(D. Utah July 20, 2009).
30

Complaint ¶¶ 111-15, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

31

King’s Response at 4-5, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

32

Complaint ¶¶ 111-15, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

33

Motion to Dismiss at 4-5, docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016; Defendants’ Reply at 5, docket no. 21, filed Aug. 29,
2016.

6

an underlying claim. 34 Nevertheless, King concedes that her accounting claim may be restyled as
a claim for breach of employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing against XPO
with an accounting and declaratory relief as related remedies. 35
In Utah, “‘[a]n action for an accounting may be legal or equitable[] depending upon the
facts set out in the pleadings.’” 36 “An action ‘to recover on an account where items and balances
either have been determined or are readily determined is an action at law which sounds in
contract[.]’” 37 But accounting is not an independent legal cause of action when it is sought in
connection with a tort or contractual claim for damages, absent statutory authority. 38 An
equitable accounting claim, on the other hand, “‘may lie to adjust mutual accounts, or one-sided
accounts which are complicated, or which, in addition to being mutual or complicated, require
relief, by way of discovery, for their settlement.’” 39 However, “‘[t]he necessary prerequisite to
the right to maintain a suit for an equitable accounting, like all other equitable remedies, is … the
absence of an adequate remedy at law.’” 40 “As the United States Supreme court [has]
observed …
‘[o]ur cases have long recognized the distinction between an action at law for
damages—which are intended to provide a victim with monetary compensation
for an injury to his person, property, or reputation—and an equitable action for
specific relief—which may include an order providing for the reinstatement of an
34

King’s Response at 5-6, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

35

Id.

36

Failor v. MegaDyne Med. Prods., Inc., 2009 UT App 179, ¶ 14, 213 P.3d 899 (quoting Green v. Palfreyman, 166
P.2d 215, 219 (Utah 1946)).

37

Int’l Harvester Credit Corp. v. Pioneer Tractor and Implement, Inc., 626 P.2d 418, 421 (Utah 1981).

38

Richardson v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 614 P.2d 636, 640 (Utah 1980); GLFP, Ltd. v. CL Mgmt, Ltd., 2007 UT App
131, ¶¶ 14-15, 163 P.3d 636; USSA Mut. Funds Tr. v. Jordanelle Special Serv. Dist., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
165566, *26 (D. Utah Dec. 9, 2015); Precision Vascular Sys. v. Sarcors LC, 199 F.Supp.2d 1181, 1193 (D. Utah
Apr. 12, 2002).
39

Failor, 2009 UT App 179, ¶ 14 (quoting 1 Am.Jur.2d Accounts & Accounting § 56 (2005)).

40
Id. (quoting Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 478, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962)); see also Cohen v.
Wrapsol Acquisition, LLC, 177 F.Supp.3d 1373, 1379 (D. Utah Arp. 11, 2016); Roberts v. America’s Wholesale
Lender, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54805, *27-29 (D. Utah Mar. 22, 2012).

7

employee with backpay, or for the recovery of specific property or monies,
ejectment from land, or injunction either directing or restraining the defendant[‘s]
… actions. The fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to
another is not sufficient reason to characterized the relief as ‘money damages.’’ 41
King’s Complaint does not identify whether she seeks an equitable or a legal accounting
with her ninth cause of action. 42 Rather, it appears that King attempts to combine the two types
of actions into one accounting claim. King alleges that she “has been underpaid and deprived of
revenues which she is entitled, and an accounting is necessary to ascertain, reconcile and receive
these amounts.” 43 This request for specific relief through the recovery of specific monies
suggests a claim for an equitable accounting. 44 On the other hand, King’s alleges that she “is
being forced to engage in further legal proceedings with the State of Utah, including to prevent
potential monetary sanction, as a result of XPO inaccurately reporting [her] employment
compensation to [t]he State of Utah.” 45 This allegation suggests an action at law seeking
monetary compensation for her injury suffered by XPO’s alleged conduct. 46 King ultimately
asserts that “a full accounting is necessary to determine the amounts that [she] has been
underpaid and/or deceptively or fraudulently shorted.” 47
Whether King’s accounting claim 48 is construed as a claim for an equitable accounting or
a legal accounting, it fails. If she attempts a claim for equitable accounting, it fails because King
does not allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law, or that the accounts in this case are so
41

Pelt v. Utah, 611 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1279 (D. Utah Mar. 25, 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879,
108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988)) (emphasis in original).

42

Complaint ¶¶ 116-20, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

43

Complaint ¶ 118, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

44

Pelt, 611 F.Supp.2d at 1279.

45

Complaint ¶ 119, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

46

Pelt, 611 F.Supp.2d at 1279.

47

Complaint ¶ 120, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016

48

Id. ¶¶ 116-20.

8

complicated that only a court of equity can unravel them. 49 A claim for a legal accounting fails
because King cites no statutory authority authorizing an accounting under the circumstances
alleged. Also, her allegations and arguments demonstrate that the accounting she seeks is
underpinned by tort—deceptive or fraudulent acts—or contract—breach of employment contract
and breach of good faith and fair dealing—claims, which permit the accounting to be a potential
remedy, but not an independent cause of action. 50 Therefore, King’s ninth cause of action for
accounting against XPO 51 fails to state a claim as a matter of law. Because King concedes that
an adequate remedy at law exists through a restyling of the claim as a claim for breach of
employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing against XPO, 52 the dismissal of
King’s ninth cause of action for accounting against XPO 53 is with prejudice.
King’s Motion to Amend Complaint
Amendments to pleadings are governed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. “Except when an amendment is pleaded ‘as a matter of course,’ as defined by the
rule, ‘a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the
court's leave.’” 54 “The purpose of the Rule is to provide litigants the maximum opportunity for
each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural niceties[,]” 55 and the Rule
specifies that leave should be “freely give[n] … when justice so requires.” 56 Therefore,
"[r]efusing leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue
49

Failor, 2009 UT App 179, ¶ 14; Cohen, 177 F.Supp.3d at 1379; Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54805, *27-29.

50

Richardson, 614 P.2d at 640; GLFP, Ltd., 2007 UT App 131, ¶¶ 14-15; USSA Mut. Funds Tr., 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 165566, *26; Precision Vascular Sys., 199 F.Supp.2d at 1193.
51

Complaint ¶¶ 116-20, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

52

King’s Response at 5-6, docket no. 20, filed Aug. 16, 2016.

53

Complaint ¶¶ 116-20, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

54

Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2)).

55

Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).

56

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).

9

prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, or futility of amendment.” 57 However, “[t]he grant of leave to
amend the pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(a) is within the discretion of the trial court[.]” 58
King requests leave to amend her Complaint:
•

to remove her claims against Jensen individually;

•

to modify her common law wrongful termination claim against XPO to allege
retaliatory firing based on her efforts to require XPO to abide by labor laws by
providing her with her basic salary and labor law documentation and
accounting information;

•

to restyle her accounting claim against XPO as a claim for breach of
employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing, with
accounting and declaratory relief as related remedies; and

•

to add a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Defendant Casey McKell. 59

XPO and Jensen oppose the Motion to Amend Complaint arguing that the proposed
amendments are futile. 60 XPO and Jensen further argue that by modifying and restyling her
claims, King is attempting to improperly use Rule 15(a) to make her Complaint a moving
target. 61

57

Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993).

58

Minter, 451 F.3d at 1204 (internal quotations omitted).

59

Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016; Proposed Amended Complaint, docket no. 19-1,
filed Aug. 12, 2016.
60

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (“Defendants’ Response”), docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29,
2016.
61

Defendants’ Response, docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29, 2016.

10

King’s request for leave to amend her Complaint to remove her claims against Jensen
individually is moot
Given the dismissal with prejudice of King’s first cause of action for sexual harassment
and fifth cause of action for sexual discrimination based on gender against Jensen, 62 King’s
request for leave to amend her Complaint to remove these claims is moot.
Leave is granted for King to amend her Complaint to assert a common law wrongful
termination claim against XPO relating to her efforts to require XPO to abide by Utah
labor laws
King requests leave to amend her Complaint to include a common law wrongful
termination claim against XPO for retaliatory firing based on her efforts to require XPO to abide
by United States and Utah labor laws by providing her with her basic salary and labor law
documentation and accounting information. 63 XPO and Jensen oppose the amendment arguing
that it is futile. They say the proposed claim is preempted by the unfair labor practice jurisdiction
of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) if based on alleged violations of United States
labor laws, and by UTAH CODE ANN. § 34-28-19, which provides administrative procedures for
wage-related complaints, if based on alleged violations of Utah labor laws. 64 XPO and Jensen
further argue that King is attempting to improperly use Rule 15(a) to make her Complaint a
moving target. 65
In response to these arguments, King has agreed to excise portions of the proposed claim
relating to alleged violations of United States labor laws. 66 This concession makes it unnecessary
to address XPO and Jensen’s argument regarding preemption by the unfair labor practice
62

Supra at 3-4.

63

Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016; Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 111-15,
docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016.
64

Defendants’ Response at 3, docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29, 2016.

65

Id.

66

Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend (“King’s Reply”) at 6-8, docket no. 23, filed Sept.
12, 2016.

11

jurisdiction of the NLRB. However, King maintains that the proposed claim is appropriately
asserted with regard to alleged violations of Utah labor laws. 67
“A proposed amendment is futile if the [claim], as amended, would be subject to
dismissal.” 68 XPO and Jensen argue that King’s proposed claim is preempted by UTAH CODE
ANN. § 34-28-19. 69 This statute provides that:
An employer violates this chapter if the employer takes an action[, including the
discharge, demotion, or any other form of retaliation against an employee in the
terms, privileges, or conditions of employment,] against an employee because:
(i) the employee files a complaint or testifies in a proceeding relative to the
enforcement of this chapter;
(ii) the employee is going to file a complaint or testify in a proceeding relative to
the enforcement of this chapter; or
(iii) the employer believes that the employee may file a complaint or testify in any
proceeding relative to the enforcement of this chapter. 70
The statute further provides that “[a]n employee claiming to be aggrieved by an action of the
employer … may file with the division a request for agency action.” 71
In addressing the exclusivity of the administrative remedy procedure of UTAH CODE
ANN. § 34-28-19, the Utah Court of Appeals has recognized that “a party need not exhaust
administrative remedies where it would serve no useful purpose[.]” 72 The court held that because
“claims of wrongful termination and breach of contract sound in tort and in contract, and because
the agency has no jurisdiction to hear such claims, … [a trial] court’s dismissal of those
[claims]” for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is improper. 73 This holding and the
67

Id.

68

Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Moody's Inv’r Servs., 175 F.3d 848, 859 (10th Cir.1999).

69

Defendants’ Response at 3, docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29, 2016.

70

UTAH CODE ANN. § 34-28-19(1)(a).

71

Id. § 34-28-19(2)(a).

72

Parkdale Care Ctr. v. Frandsen, 837 P.2d 989, 992 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).

73

Id. at 993.

12

permissive language of the statute, that “[a]n employee claiming to be aggrieved by an action of
the employer … may file with the division a request for agency action[,]” 74 demonstrate that the
administrative remedy procedures of the statute are not the exclusive remedy for an employee
claiming retaliatory firing for making complaints concerning the payment of wages. Therefore,
King’s proposed common law wrongful termination claim is not preempted by UTAH CODE
ANN. § 34-28-19, and is not clearly futile on this ground.
Additionally, while King’s Complaint did not include allegations of retaliatory firing
based on her efforts to require XPO to abide by Utah labor laws, 75 this case is in its early stages.
No answer has been filed. A scheduling order has not entered. And King sought leave to amend
her Complaint prior to the entry of any order dismissing her claims. 76 Therefore, the proposed
amendment is timely and no prejudice is suffered by King’s delay in raising these new
allegations. 77 Accordingly, King is granted leave to file an amended complaint that includes a
common law claim for wrongful termination against XPO based on King’s efforts to require
XPO to abide by Utah labor laws by providing her with her basic salary and labor law
documentation and accounting information.
However, the Proposed Amended Complaint 78 that King previously submitted lacks
specific factual allegations to support a common law claim for wrongful termination based on
her efforts to require XPO to abide by Utah labor laws. The Proposed Amended Complaint
makes only a general assertion that:

74

UTAH CODE ANN. § 34-28-19(2)(a) (emphasis added).

75

Complaint, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016

76

Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

77

Minter, 451 F.3d at 1204; Frank, 3 F.3d at 1365.

78

Docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016

13

XPO’s termination of Plaintiff King was, among other things, in retaliation for
King attempting to exercise her rights and privileges under the various labor laws
of the United States and also of Utah in relation to requesting her salary records
and labor-related information to ensure she was getting full and fair pay as
required by applicable labor laws. 79
“[N]aked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement,” do not sufficiently state a claim. 80
“The allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just
speculatively) has a claim for relief.” 81 “This requirement of plausibility serves not only to weed
out claims that do not (in the absence of additional allegations) have a reasonable prospect of
success, but also to inform the defendants of the actual grounds of the claim against them.” 82
Therefore, the Proposed Amended Complaint 83 that King submitted is deficient. If King files an
amended complaint regarding her common law claim for wrongful termination based on her
efforts to require XPO to abide by Utah labor laws it must include the requisite factual
allegations.
Leave is granted for King to amend her Complaint to assert a claim for breach of
employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing against XPO
King requests leave to amend her Complaint to restyle her accounting claim against XPO
as a claim for breach of employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing, with
accounting and declaratory relief as related remedies. 84 XPO and Jensen oppose the amendment

79

Id. ¶ 112.

80

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotations omitted).

81

Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008).

82

Id. at 1248.

83

Docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016

84

Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016; Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 116-21,
docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

14

arguing that it is futile because the proposed claim continues to improperly assert accounting as
an independent cause of action. 85
Under Utah law, “[t]he elements of a prima facie case for breach of contract are (1) a
contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) breach of the contract by the other
party, and (4) damages.” 86 Additionally, “[a]n implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
inheres in every contract.” 87 “Under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, both parties to a
contract impliedly promise not to intentionally do anything to injure the other party’s right to
receive the benefits of the contract.” 88 “[E]xpress breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing are separate causes of action.” 89
King’s proposed claim alleges that she had an employment contract with XPO under
which she rendered labor in expectation that XPO would remit promised compensation and
comply with applicable laws for reporting her compensation. 90 The proposed claim further
alleges that following the termination of King’s employment, XPO inaccurately reported her
compensation amounts to the Utah Department of Workforce Services and also underpaid her
and deprived her of compensation to which she is entitled. 91 The proposed claim also asserts that
XPO’s conduct constitutes a breach of the employment contract and a breach of the covenant of

85

Defendants’ Response at 3, docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29, 2016.

86

Bair v. Axiom Design, LLC, 2001 UT 20, ¶ 14, 20 P.3d 388.

87

Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2004 UT 28, ¶ 14, 94 P.3d 193.

88

Id.

89

Terry v. Hinds, 47 F.Supp.3d 1265, 1274 (D. Utah Sept. 17, 2014); see also Blakely v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 633
F.3d 944, 947 (10th Cir. 2011).
90

Proposed Amended Complaint ¶ 117, docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

91

Id. ¶¶ 117-18.

15

good faith and fair dealing by denying King the core benefit of her bargain. 92 King requests
relief in the form of a full accounting, declaratory order, and money damages. 93
The allegations within King’s proposed claim 94 are sufficient to state a claim in light of
the current briefing. 95 Notably, however, “[i]f the [defendant] breached the express terms of the
contract, that conduct might give rise to an express breach claim.” 96 “But if the [defendant]
breached an implied good faith term in the contract, it gives rise only to a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” 97 King’s proposed claim 98 includes allegations as to
each type of contract claim. The viability of the two contract claims being asserted together
under the circumstances alleged was not addressed in the parties’ briefing and may be the subject
of future motion. Additionally, the requested remedy of a full accounting is likely unnecessary,
as discovery procedures should adequately disclose the necessary information regarding King’s
compensation and XPO’s reporting of her compensation to enable presentation to a jury for a
damages calculation. 99 However, this would not render the proposed claim futile, as declaratory
order and money damages relief would still be available. Therefore, King’s proposed claim for
breach of employment contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing is not clearly futile. The
proposed amendment is also timely and no prejudice is suffered by King’s delay in raising these
new allegations. 100 Accordingly, King is granted leave to file an amended complaint that

92

Id. ¶ 121.

93

Id.

94

Id. ¶¶ 116-21.

95

Bair, 2001 UT 20, ¶ 14; Eggett, 2004 UT 28, ¶ 14.

96

Terry, 47 F.Supp.3d at 1275.

97

Id.

98

Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 116-21, docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

99

Roberts, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54805, *27-29.

100

Supra at 13.

16

includes a proposed claim for breach of employment contract and breach of good faith and fair
dealing.
King is granted leave to amend her Complaint regarding her claims against Casey McKell
King also requests leave to amend her Complaint to add a claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress against Casey McKell, her direct supervisor. 101 Despite being served with a
summons and King’s Complaint, 102 McKell has not filed an answer, responded to King’s Motion
to Amend Complaint, or otherwise made an appearance in the case. XPO and Jensen note that
King’s claims against McKell should be precluded for the same reasons that King’s claims
against Jensen were dismissed. 103 However, XPO and Jensen do not represent McKell and have
no standing to seek the dismissal of King’s claims against him. Given the early state of the
proceedings, and that McKell has not yet made an appearance in the case, King’s request for
leave to amend her Complaint regarding her claims against McKell is timely and no prejudice is
suffered by King’s delay in raising these new allegations. 104 Therefore, King is granted leave to
amend her Complaint regarding her claims against McKell.
Nevertheless, King is reminded of the continuing duties of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:
By presenting to the court a pleading, … an attorney or unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

101

Motion to Amend Complaint, docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016; Proposed Amended Complaint ¶¶ 13, 122-26,
docket no. 19-1, filed Aug. 12, 2016.
102

Proof of Service under URCP 4, docket no. 10, filed June 20, 2016.

103

Defendants’ Response at 2, docket no. 22, filed Aug. 29, 2016; see also supra at 3-4.

104

Supra at 13.

17

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law
or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law
or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if
specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information. 105
In light of the analysis and conclusions of this Memorandum Decision and Order, King should
reevaluate the propriety of her claims and requests for relief against McKell, as well as those
relating to XPO and Jensen, which she presents in the amended complaint.

105

FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b).

18

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1)

XPO and Jensen’s Motion to Dismiss 106 is GRANTED;

(2)

King’s first cause of action for sexual harassment and fifth cause of action for

sexual discrimination based on gender against Jensen 107 are DISMISSED with prejudice;
(3)

King’s eighth cause of action for wrongful termination against XPO 108 is

DISMISSED without prejudice;
(4)

King’s ninth cause of action for accounting against XPO 109 is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and
(5)

King’s Motion to Amend Complaint 110 is GRANTED IN PART with direction

that King file an amended complaint that is consistent with the analysis and conclusions of this
Memorandum Decision and Order by no later than 14 days after the entry of this Memorandum
Decision and Order.
(6)

The parties shall meet and confer and on or before February 8, 2017, file an

attorneys’ planning meeting report and submit a proposed scheduling order as outlined at
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/ipt.html.
Signed January 18, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________________
District Judge David Nuffer
106

Docket no. 17, filed July 29, 2016.

107

Complaint ¶¶ 66-74, 96-103, docket no. 2, filed May 24, 2016.

108

Id. ¶¶ 111-15.

109

Id. ¶¶ 116-120.

110

Docket no. 19, filed Aug. 12, 2016.

19