Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cummins Power Generation Inc., 313 F.R.D. 93

Background

Habighorst was hired by Cummins in Aug. 2012; Cummins required a fitness‑for‑duty assessment in Oct. 2012 and contracted with Cigna to administer it. Cummins also discussed using Dr. Charles Pearson at Habighorst’s request.
Cigna sent a broad medical‑information authorization (the “Cigna Authorization”); Pearson sent a diagnostic form requesting family medical history (the “Pearson Form”). Habighorst objected to both and refused to sign/complete them.
Because Habighorst declined to participate, Cummins did not obtain the assessments and terminated him in Jan. 2013. Habighorst filed a charge with the EEOC alleging ADA and GINA violations; the EEOC sued after conciliation failed. Habighorst intervened.
Cummins asserted, among other defenses, that the authors of the Cigna Authorization and Pearson Form (Cigna and Pearson) are indispensable parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and thus must be joined.
The EEOC and intervenor moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) to strike Cummins’ indispensable‑party defense; the court treated the motion as proper and granted it, striking/dismissing that defense with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 12(c) motion may challenge an affirmative defense that non‑parties are indispensable	EEOC: 12(c) is appropriate; even assuming Cummins’ facts, the defense fails as a matter of law	Cummins: 12(c) is improper; challenge should be by Rule 12(f) motion to strike	Court: 12(c) may be used; standards are similar and EEOC met 12(c) standard
Whether Cigna and Pearson are "necessary" under Rule 19(a)(1) because complete relief cannot be provided without them	EEOC: Employer (Cummins) can be held liable despite third‑party involvement; complete relief can be afforded against Cummins alone	Cummins: Forms were authored by third parties whose joinder is required; their absence impairs interests and risks inconsistent obligations	Court: Not necessary — Cummins as employer can provide complete relief; third parties’ absence does not impair protectable interests
Whether absent non‑parties (Cigna/Pearson) have interests that would be impaired by litigation without them	EEOC: Any indemnity/contribution claims are speculative and do not create a Rule 19 interest; Cummins will adequately defend to protect those interests	Cummins: Might have indemnity or contribution claims; thus authors have an interest requiring joinder	Court: Speculative future claims do not make non‑parties necessary; no impairment shown
Whether joinder is required to avoid multiple or inconsistent obligations	EEOC: No realistic risk of inconsistent court orders; obligations can be satisfied by Cummins alone	Cummins: Potential for inconsistent results or obligations if third parties not joined	Court: No substantial risk of inconsistent obligations shown; Rule 19(a)(1)(B) not satisfied

Key Cases Cited

Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred Comp. Plans v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 (employer liable for discriminatory features of third‑party administered plans)
City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 (employer cannot avoid responsibility for discriminatory programs delegated to third parties)
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL‑CIO, 451 U.S. 77 (limits on contribution/indemnity for certain statutory liabilities)
Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 1006 (two‑step Rule 19 analysis; necessity ends inquiry if not met)
Spirit Lake Tribe v. North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732 (non‑party absence renders judgment infirm if it would be prejudicial)
Buddy Bean Lumber Co. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 715 F.3d 695 (standard for Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings)