Blough v. Rural Electric Coop, Inc.
689 F. App'x 583
10th Cir.2017Background
- Blough, a REC lineman, was injured in 2009, remained employed but uncompensated, and received ERISA long-term disability (LTD) benefits that were later terminated; REC then terminated his employment in December 2012.
- Blough previously litigated claims (including ERISA) against REC and employee Dale Nye; the district court ruled for defendants on ERISA and declined supplemental jurisdiction over an Oklahoma wrongful termination claim.
- In 2015 Blough sued REC and Nye again asserting (1) claims for ERISA benefits/relief tied to alleged wrongful termination and (2) ADA discrimination/retaliation for failure to provide work or rehire him.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing res judicata (as to ERISA benefits), inadequate pleading of an Oklahoma wrongful-termination theory, and untimeliness/insufficiency of the ADA charge; Blough did not timely oppose the motion.
- The district court granted dismissal (also noting its discretion to deem the motion confessed), and denied Blough’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (excusable neglect and 60(b)(6) tested and rejected).
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held Blough failed to plead a plausible Oklahoma wrongful-termination claim or an ADA claim, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrongful termination claim under Oklahoma law was adequately pleaded | Blough argued his termination entitled him to reinstatement and ERISA/other damages; he asserted a wrongful termination claim | REC argued Blough failed to identify a clear, compelling Oklahoma public policy required to state a Burk wrongful-discharge claim | Dismissed: complaint failed to allege violation of a clear and compelling Oklahoma public policy (Burk/McCrady standard) |
| Whether ADA claim was timely and adequately pleaded | Blough claimed discriminatory motive surfaced later (deposition evidence) and that charge could be timely when measured from that discovery; he asserted failure-to-hire/retaliation under the ADA | Defendants argued Blough filed his EEOC charge untimely and his complaint lacked factual allegations to plausibly state an ADA claim | Dismissed: complaint contained only conclusory allegations; failed to plead the elements of an ADA prima facie case (disability, qualification, discrimination) |
| Whether ERISA claims were barred by res judicata | Blough conceded prior adjudication of disability-benefits claims | Defendants maintained prior judgment precluded re-litigation of ERISA benefits | Affirmed: ERISA benefit claims were precluded by res judicata (Blough conceded) |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief (excusable neglect / 60(b)(6)) was warranted | Blough argued counsel was given an informal extension and was incapacitated by a family medical crisis, warranting relief and leave to amend | Defendants argued the dismissal was proper on the merits and Blough failed to show excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances | Denied: district court did not abuse discretion—counsel’s neglect was not shown to be excusable; no unusual or compelling circumstances under 60(b)(6); no entitlement to amend without Rule 60 relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requires plausible factual content)
- Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Dewitt v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2017) (elements of an ADA prima facie claim)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (elements guide plausibility analysis at pleading stage)
- Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla. 1989) (Oklahoma rule recognizing wrongful discharge for violating clear public policy)
- McCrady v. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 122 P.3d 473 (Okla. 2005) (requirement to identify clear and compelling Oklahoma public policy)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (pleading standard: enough factual matter to suggest entitlement to relief)
- Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2005) (factors for excusable neglect analysis under Rule 60(b)(1))
- Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572 (10th Cir. 1996) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires unusual or compelling circumstances)
- The Tool Box, Inc. v. Ogden City Corp., 419 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 2005) (amendment after judgment requires setting aside judgment under Rule 59(e) or 60(b))