Grim v. Centrum Valley Farms, L. L.P.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. C 15-3167-MWB,C 15-3167-MWB
• Parties: THEODORE JOHN GRIM III, Plaintiff, v. CENTRUM VALLEY FARMS, L.L.P., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

THEODORE JOHN GRIM III, Plaintiff, v. CENTRUM VALLEY FARMS, L.L.P., Defendant.

No. C 15-3167-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

March 18, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 2

A. Factual Background ............................................................... 2

B. Procedural Background ........................................................... 4

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 5

A. Applicable Standards ............................................................... 5

1. Standards for dismissal for failure to state a claim .................. 5

2. "Wrongful" and "constructive" discharge under Iowa law ..................................................................... 8

B. Grim's Claim Of "Constructive Discharge—Workers' Compensation Retaliation"

..................................................... 12

1. Arguments of the parties ................................................ 12

2. Analysis .................................................................... 13

C. Grim's Claim Of "Constructive Discharge—Failure To Pay Overtime Wages"

................................................................. 18

1. Arguments of the parties ................................................ 18

2. Analysis .................................................................... 19

III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 22

Has the plaintiff, a laborer employed by an egg producer, stated viable claims for constructive discharge? The plaintiff claims that he was constructively discharged in violation of Iowa public policy, in retaliation for his claim for workers compensation benefits, by his employer's failure to accommodate his work restrictions. He also claims that he was constructively discharged by his employer's failure to pay overtime wages as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendant employer seeks dismissal of these claims for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

Because this case is before me on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the pertinent factual background is necessarily drawn from the Petition At Law originally filed by plaintiff Theodore John Grim III in the Iowa District Court for Wright County and removed to this court by defendant Centrum Valley Farms, L.L.P. See, e.g., Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 5B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)). The Statement Of Facts in Grim's Petition, upon which all of his claims are based, is set out in the following twelve short paragraphs:

5. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a general laborer for a period of approximately two years.

6. Plaintiff's regular job consisted of boxing eggs by putting eggs into flats in a box. He then stacked them on pallets and wrapped them up, took them with a pallet jack and loaded them into a freezer so they would be ready for loading onto trucks.

7. Plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment in May 2014.

8. As a result of the work-related left hand injury of May 2014, Plaintiff was provided restrictions that included no repeated grasping, and recommended icing every 15 minutes.

9. After Plaintiff sustained a work related injury, he was provided an "accommodated" kindling job which required picking out bad eggs. This position was extremely painful because of the repeated grasping and gripping.

10. Aside from the pain from the kindling job, the braces Plaintiff was wearing made it difficult to grasp eggs and resulted in eggs being broken.

11. Plaintiff was threatened with termination for breaking eggs.

12. When Plaintiff complained of pain from his work-related injury, he was allowed to do a painting job. This job still involved repetitive arm use and cause[d] increased pain.

13. Continual failure to follow the work restrictions provided led Plaintiff to complain of pain from painting. Plaintiff was then sent home as "sick" for three days and was not paid wages or workers' compensation.

14. After Plaintiff returned from his three "sick days," he was told that if he missed any more work he would be fired.

15. During the course of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked on average 12 hours per day, a minimum of five days per week and was paid his regular wages without overtime for all work performed.

16. Plaintiff's work-related injury and Defendant's failure to pay overtime led to the termination of his employment with Defendant.

Petition (docket no. 4), ¶¶ 5-16.

Grim "reasserts" these twelve paragraphs in each of his claims. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 22, 28, and 36. In addition, in support of his claim of "Constructive Discharge—Workers' Compensation Retaliation," Grim alleges, in pertinent part, that "Defendant's intentional failure to accommodate Plaintiff's work restrictions was done in retaliation for filing for workers' compensation"; that "he was further retaliated against by being taken off of work with no pay"; that, "[b]ased on Defendant's failure to accommodate, Plaintiff's working conditions became intolerable and he was forced to involuntarily resign from his employment with Defendant"; and that, "[u]ltimately, [he] quit his employment because of the pain in his arms and the fact Defendant continually failed to accommodate his work restrictions." Id. at ¶¶ 30, 32, 33, and 34. In support of his claims of "Constructive Discharge—Failure To Pay Overtime Wages," Grim also alleges, in pertinent part, that, "[b]ased on the withholding of overtime wages, Plaintiff's working conditions became intolerable and he was forced to involuntarily resign from his employment with Defendant" and that "the continuous pattern of wage withholding for approximately two years made the work performed for Defendant intolerable." Id. at ¶¶ 39-40.

B. Procedural Background

Grim filed his Petition initiating this action in the Iowa District Court for Wright County on October 5, 2015. In his Petition, Grim asserts the following four claims: In Count I, a claim of "Wrongful Withholding Of Wages" in violation of the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Laws, IOWA CODE § 91A.3; in Count II, a claim of "Failure To Pay Overtime Wages," in violation of the FLSA; in Count III, a claim of "Constructive Discharge—Workers' Compensation Retaliation"; and in Count IV, a claim of "Constructive Discharge—Failure To Pay Overtime Wages."

On November 19, 2015, defendant Centrum Valley Farms filed its Notice of Removal (docket no. 2), removing this action to this federal court. Grim's Petition wasthen refiled in this court as docket no. 4. On November 25, 2015, in lieu of answering Grim's Petition, Centrum Valley Farms filed the Pre-Answer Motion For Partial Dismissal (docket no. 7) now before me. In its Motion, Centrum Valley Farms challenges only the "constructive discharge" claims in Counts III and IV of Grim's Petition. Grim filed his Resistance To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 9), resisting dismissal of either of the challenged claims, on December 14, 2015. Centrum Valley Farms then filed a Reply (docket no. 10), in further support of its Motion, on December 22, 2015.

Centrum Valley Farms requested oral arguments on its Motion. I do not find that oral arguments are likely to be of benefit in this case, however, in light of the parties' briefing and the applicable legal standards. Therefore, I will consider Centrum Valley Farms's Motion on the parties' written submissions.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Standards

1. Standards for dismissal for failure to state a claim

Centrum Valley Farms's Motion is pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a pre-answer motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained,

We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss, accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). "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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). "A claim has facial plausibilitywhen the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2012); accord Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 703 F.3d 436, 438 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Richter, 686 F.3d at 850); Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d 1118, 1128 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating the same standards).

Courts consider "plausibility" under this Twom-bal standard¹ by "'draw[ing] on [their own] judicial experience and common sense.'" Whitney, 700 F.3d at 1128 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Also, courts must "'review the plausibility of the plaintiff's claim as a whole, not the plausibility of each individual allegation.'" Id. (quoting Zoltek Corp. v. Structural Polymer Grp., 592 F.3d 893, 896 n.4 (8th Cir. 2010)). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused, at the pleading stage, "to incorporate some general and formal level of evidentiary proof into the 'plausibility' requirement of Iqbal and Twombly." Id. Nevertheless, the question "is not whether [the pleader] might at some later stage be able to prove [facts alleged];...