Boyed v. Management Registry Inc., 3:16-cv-02609

Plaintiff Mark Boyed, a temporary worker with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, sued under the FMLA and Ohio anti-discrimination law after being disciplined/fired following a request for medical leave.
Boyed was supplied to Dana by Management Registry Inc. (MRI); MRI's on-site supervisor was Chad Bailey and Dana supervisor was John Donathan.
A contractor agreement between Dana ("purchaser") and MRI ("supplier") gave Dana operational control over supplier employees in specified circumstances and contained an indemnity clause requiring MRI to indemnify Dana (no reciprocal indemnity for Dana).
The court previously dismissed Boyed's FMLA claim against Dana and Donathan (finding Dana a secondary employer) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against them; claims against MRI and Bailey remained.
MRI filed a crossclaim against Dana seeking indemnity, contribution, breach of contract, negligence, and respondeat superior liability if MRI were found liable to Boyed.
Dana moved to dismiss MRI’s crossclaims under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contract requires Dana to indemnify MRI	MRI: contract obligation (Dana must defend/indemnify MRI for claims arising from Dana employees)	Dana: contract contains only MRI-to-Dana indemnity; no reciprocal duty	Dismissed — no contractual language imposing indemnity on Dana
Whether implied/equitable/comparative indemnity applies	MRI: if held liable, its liability would be vicarious based on Dana’s conduct, so Dana should indemnify	Dana: MRI’s alleged liability arises from its own active conduct, not merely vicarious liability	Dismissed — implied/equitable indemnity inapplicable because MRI pleaded active wrongdoing
Whether MRI can seek contribution from Dana	MRI: joint-tortfeasor liability supports contribution	Dana: contribution requires negligence/tort joint liability; MRI’s liability derives from its own conduct and statutory employment claims	Dismissed — contribution doctrine inapplicable (no joint negligent torts)
Whether negligence/respondeat superior claims against Dana are plausible	MRI: Dana/Donathan breached duties to MRI and caused MRI defense costs; alternatively, Dana vicariously liable for Donathan	Dana: no duty owed to MRI alleged; Boyed did not assert negligence against Donathan; MRI’s liability is independent	Dismissed — negligence and respondeat superior claims implausible and fail as matter of law

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: facial plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
Mahathiraj v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 84 Ohio App. 3d 554 (discussing implied indemnity and passive vs. active negligence)
Taylor v. Academy Iron & Metal Co., 36 Ohio St. 3d 149 (equating equitable indemnity concepts)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marcinko, 436 N.E.2d 551 (elements for contribution among joint tortfeasors)