United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING MOTION
E. SCHREIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), moves to
strike the third-party complaint filed by M.G. Oil Company.
Docket 11. Third-party defendant, TestPoint Paramedical, LLC,
moves to dismiss the third-party complaint under Rules
12(b)(1) and (6). Docket 14. TestPoint joins the EEOC's
motion to strike the third-party complaint. Docket 16.
Defendant, M.G. Oil Company, opposes the motion to strike and
the motion to dismiss. Dockets 17 and 19. For the following
reasons, the EEOC's and TestPoint's motions are
the time relevant to this case, M.G. Oil had a contract with
TestPoint to have TestPoint analyze M.G. Oil's drug tests
of prospective new employees and inform M.G. Oil whether the
test results were negative or non-negative for drugs. Docket
7 ¶ 4. M.G. Oil asserts that if the sample analysis
yielded a non-negative result, then TestPoint was obligated
to send the drug test to a medical review officer to
determine whether the non-negative result was a consequence
of the test subject taking a legal prescription drug.
Id. ¶ 5. Then, if the non-negative result was
due to a legal prescription drug, TestPoint would report the
test results as negative to M.G. Oil. Id. ¶ 6.
April 8, 2013, Kim Mullaney applied for a job with Happy
Jack's in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is owned by
M.G. Oil. Docket 2 at 4. Contingent on a negative drug test
result, Mullaney was offered a position with M.G. Oil.
Id. On April 9, 2013, Mullaney took the drug test
and it was sent to TestPoint for analysis. Docket 7 ¶ 8.
TestPoint reported to M.G. Oil that Mullaney's drug test
result was non-negative. Id. ¶ 9. M.G. Oil
asserts there was no indication that TestPoint had not sent
the drug test to a medical review officer to verify the
result. Id. M.G. Oil alleges that it assumed the
drug test previously had been sent to a medical review
officer to determine if there was a valid legal reason for
the non-negative result and based on this assumption, it
rescinded its employment offer to Mullaney. Id.
claims she is a disabled person under Sections 3 and 101(8)
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12102 and 12111(8). Docket 2 ¶ 14. Mullaney
alleges that, after the revocation of her employment offer,
she explained to M.G. Oil that the non-negative drug test
results were due to her lawful use of a prescription pain
killer she took for back pain. Id. ¶ 18. She
also claims that, despite her explanation, M.G. Oil refused
to reconsider her for the position. Id. ¶ 20.
M.G. Oil asserts that before her drug test Mullaney
“never indicated she had an impairment and never
appeared to have an impairment.” Docket 17 at 2. M.G.
Oil admits that Mullaney notified M.G. Oil of her
prescription painkiller use, but asserts that it “had
no way of knowing whether these claims were true.”
Docket 5 ¶ 18.
to fit the ADA's disabled person description, Mullaney
filed her charge against M.G. Oil with the EEOC. Docket 2
¶ 7. On Mullaney's behalf, the EEOC sent a
conciliation letter to M.G. Oil, alerting the company to the
allegedly discriminatory actions that it had taken against
Mullaney and seeking appropriate relief. Id. ¶
8. M.G. Oil and the EEOC could not reach an agreement about
how to resolve Mullaney's complaint with M.G. Oil.
Id. ¶ 10. After the EEOC's letter
concerning Mullaney's alleged discrimination failed to
resolve the dispute, the EEOC filed suit against M.G. Oil on
Mullaney's behalf. Docket 5 ¶ 9; Docket 2.
filed suit against M.G. Oil claiming that M.G. Oil
discriminated against Mullaney in violation of Title I of the
ADA. Docket 2. M.G. Oil filed a third-party complaint against
TestPoint, claiming that if it were found liable to Mullaney
for discrimination, then TestPoint was liable to it for all
(indemnification) or part (contribution) of the judgment
because TestPoint breached its contract with M.G. Oil and was
negligent. Docket 7. The EEOC moved to strike M.G. Oil's
third-party complaint. Docket 11. TestPoint moved to dismiss
M.G. Oil's third-party complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket 14. And
TestPoint moved to join EEOC's motion to strike M.G.
Oil's third-party complaint. Docket 16.
defendant can file a third-party complaint only against a
nonparty “who is or may be liable to it for all or part
of the claim against it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1).
According to Rule 14(a), “[a]ny party may move to
strike the third-party claim, to sever it, or to try it
separately.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(4). If the third-party
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the third-party complaint is subject to dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Also, if the third-party complaint
states a claim that lacks jurisdiction, the complaint is
subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1). Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1). The court should accept as true the facts alleged
in the third-party complaint. Mattes v. ABC Plastics,
Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697-98 (8th Cir. 2003).
may dismiss a complaint “for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). Inferences are construed in favor of the nonmoving
party. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d
585, 595 (8th Cir. 2009). “To survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.' ” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.” Id. (citing Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 556 (2007)).
Oil filed a third-party complaint against TestPoint that
seeks indemnification and contribution based on allegations
of breach of contract and negligence. Docket 7. M.G. Oil
argues that TestPoint breached its contractual duty with M.G.
Oil to send non-negative drug tests to a medical review
officer to determine if there is a valid legal reason for the
non-negative test result. Id. ¶ 14. Because of
this alleged breach, M.G. Oil argues that TestPoint is liable
to it for any damages Mullaney is awarded against M.G. Oil.
Id. ¶¶ 21, 23. M.G. Oil characterizes its
involvement in this matter ...